[arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy

Brett Frankenberger rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com
Tue May 17 19:31:29 EDT 2016

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:15:32PM +0000, Alyssa Moore wrote:
> I understand your reasoning, but also don't think that it's unreasonable to
> enact policy that prevents a problem from occurring. It may very well be
> that there have been no problems on record to date because 4.3 currently
> lays out the 25% / 30 day test, which is a deterrent for grand
> overestimations.
> Eliminating the 25% leaves only the 50% at 1 year needs test.

Was anyone is seriously applying the 25% rule with the same definition
of utilization as the 50% rule?  Assuming linear (or higher) growth,
25% at 30 days is 100% at 120 days.  I don't think that entities with
linear growth were (prior to the free-pool exhausting), coming back
every 120 days?

My sense is that the 30-day requirement has always been must less
strictly interpreted, both by those seeking address space and by ARIN.

I would be interested in John's insight as to how the rule was applied
for 12-month requests prior to run-out.  Were organizations routinely
submitting plans that showed 25% after 30 days and 50-100% after 12
months and ARIN was routinely accepting that a there were a bunch of
organizations kept experiencing the sort of growth that spikes for 30
days and then continues at a lower rate?  Was there a lot of "well,
close enough" reasoning applied by ARIN to the 30 day requirement? 
More broadly: In ARIN's experience, how was the apparent contradiction
between policy that implicitly talked about 25% utilization in 30 days
but then only about 3% to 7% per month additional utilization after
that, and the reality that few organizations actually grow that way,
worked out in practice?

     -- Brett

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list