[arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited - anti-abuse clause

[Brett Frankenberger]

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 12:35:29PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Respectfully I reject your premise on the fairness.

Agreed.  It imposes more process (on ARIN and on the requester) for
organizations whose demand for space is higher.  This is neither unfair
nor new, and seems reasonable.  Larger transfers warrant greater
scrutiny.  Existing policy requires a showing of (among other things)
80% utilization; that's relatively easy if you have a /20, and
considerably more work if you have a /13.  (The point stands even
though the /13 holder may have completely automated the process.  That
just means they did the work upfront.)

> Neither A, nor C prevent large organizations from getting more, they
> merely require that they use other less simplified provisions of the
> existing policy.
> 
> I think what I support is sort of a hybrid between A and C in that I
> believe you should be able to use the policy to transfer as often as
> you want, so long as your transfers within any 6 month period under
> this policy don’t exceed a /16.  You’d still be able to transfer a
> /16 under this policy and then use other existing policies if you
> needed more.

I favor that as well.

Any line we draw is bound to be somewhat arbitrary.  But drawing it at
"when you're consuming more than /16 every 6 months, you're big enough
to use the existing process" is, I think, better than the proposed
alternatives.

Option A denies small but fast growing organizations the full benefits
of this policy.  Option B adds additional process to what is supposed
to be a simplified option.  Option C effectively defines "large"
without regard to growth rate, whereas the proposal above defines
"large" based on growth rate.  It's harder to say why I favor the
latter, but I think the policy should be available to the provider who
needs a /16 or less every 6 months, even if he's already got a /15 half
of which came under this policy.

More generally, I think the structure of "no more than a /X in Y
months" is the right structure.  Exactly what X and Y should be could
be discussed independently.  I wouldn't be opposed to the limit being
/16 in 12 months, for example.

     -- Brett