[arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3:(remove 30-day...) Staff interpretation needed

[Richard Jimmerson]

Hello Jason,

John has asked me to provide answers to your questions below.

Note that past utilization trends and future plans are both considered in every case, except in those less common cases where there is no prior utilization at all (e.g., NRPM 4.4 and 4.10). Sometimes the prior utilization is weighted more heavily, and other times the future plans are more heavily weighted. It is truly on a case-by-case basis where the weight is placed.


From: <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>> on behalf of Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>>
John,

Thank you for the lengthy description.  I'm not sure I understand what your
estimate means so I will attempt to restate them for clarity.

It sounds like in 50% - 75% of the requests that are approved
have historical utilization is sufficient to provide approval.  Example A & C.

Correct. Many organizations are requesting a block size that is supported by the organization’s prior rate of utilization. We still review the information they provide about their future need, but can heavily rely on their demonstrated past utilization to support the block size they are requesting.

Further, we are finding that many organizations in this 50-75% category continue to request less than they could qualify for in a 24-month needs assessment. It would seem they are still adjusting to the change from a 3-month (or 12-month for end-users) needs assessment to the 24-month assessments. When it is obvious this is the case, we communicate with the organization to ensure they are fully aware of the policies.


It sounds like in 25% - 50% of the requests that are approved
have historical utilization is not sufficient to provide approval.  Example B.

It sounds like you did not provide information on how often a request
justified on a future projection is approved only in the amount justified
by historical utilization Example C, or is altogether denied or abandoned.

25% - 50% of the requests are unable to justify the block size they are requesting with the heaviest consideration weight being applied to their prior utilization trend. This results in ARIN staff giving increased weight consideration to the documentation they provide supporting their future projections. Sometimes this results in the approval of the requested block size, other times it results in ARIN staff approving a block size smaller than what was requested. Even with 24-month needs assessments, we still find we are unable to approve the requested block size for all organizations when it is not supported by prior utilization history and/or the documentation provided to support future need.



Do these numbers include both end-user and ISP requests?
Could you provide a similar estimate broken down between end-user and ISP requests?

This includes both end-users and ISPs. The percentage breakdown is very close between the two.


Do both ISP requests and end-user requests have the same percentage
of requests approved being more heavily weighted by historical utilization
trend information?

 Or do end-user requests have a higher percentage of approvals being
 more heavily weighted by historical utilization trend information?

Or do ISP requests have a higher percentage of approvals being
 more heavily weighted by historical utilization trend information?

Slightly more cases are approved based on stronger weighting of prior utilization for ISPs than for end-users. It is slightly more common for an end-user to request IPv4 from ARIN with no prior demonstrated utilization. We do note, however, that this may increase over time, as end-users find it more difficult to obtain a reassignment of IPv4 address space from providers post-depletion.

Warm regards,

Richard Jimmerson
CIO & Interim Director of Registration Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160510/68e31766/attachment.htm>