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

Sat Feb 11 22:11:59 EST 2017

Kevin,

For C, no, they wouldn’t need to show 80% utilization of the /18, they need to again show 80% overall when they came back.

Basically it introduces a 6 month sliding window allowing a total of up to a /16 transferred under this policy during any preceding 6 months.

However, there are other flaws with your scenario.

As I understand the proposal, you’re able to transfer up to your current size (max /16), so if they hold a /19, they can only transfer another /19 bringing their total holdings to /18 equivalent. Let’s call that T+0 months.

At T+2 months, they’ve again achieved 80% utilization overall and come back for a /18. They now hold a /17 equivalent total.

At T+4 months, they apply again and are able to transfer another /17 bringing their total holdings to /16.

Growth accelerates and now they come back at T+5 months. They can’t transfer another /16 because within the preceding 6 months, they’ve already transferred a /17+/18/+19.

All they would be able to transfer at T+5 months would be a /19 because that would complete a /16 worth of transfers in the preceding 6 months.

A month later, they could (potentially) transfer another /19 and 2 months later, they could potentially transfer another /18.

Owen

> On Feb 10, 2017, at 09:56 , Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> I think that is correct, although I'm not sure they'd have to show 80% of the new /18, just meet the overall usage threshold. Depends on the exact language we use, of course.
> 
> What's your preference between A, C, and D?
> 
> -Scott
> 
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca <mailto:kevinb at thewire.ca>> wrote:
> Jason, <>
>  
> 
> In regards to A that would be the presumed assumption of the existing text correct?
> 
>  
> 
> I’m not comfortable with B.
> 
>  
> 
> In regards to C the intent would be to allow someone who has a /19 to get a /18 and then as an example three months later come back for a /17 once they have shown 80 percent of the /18?
> 
>  
> 
> There is another option.
> 
>  
> 
> D) you can use this policy once every 3 months
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kevin Blumberg
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Jason Schiller
> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 2:54 PM
> To: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>>
> Cc: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited - anti-abuse clause
> 
>  
> 
> We have a few options on the table and only a few voices in the discussion...
> 
>  
> 
> I'd like to quickly outline the options, and see if we can get more people to weigh in and either note they object to one or more options, are ambivalent to one or more options, or support one or more options (with some preference).
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 1. demonstrate 80% utilization on average for all your IP space
> 
> 2. get pre-authorization for 1 or more transfers up to double your current holdings over then two years
> 
> 2.1. this is limited to a /16
> 
>  
> 
> A. you can use this policy once every 6 months
> 
>  
> 
> B. If you need to use this policy more than once every 6 months you need to also demonstrate growth equalling half what you have transferred since you last used this policy.
> 
>  
> 
> C. you can use this policy to transfer a total of up to a /16
> 
>  
> 
> Where do you stand on A, B or C?
> 
>  
> 
> __Jason
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> That would be a significant improvement on the current ("An organization may only qualify under 8.5.7 once every 6 months.") text.  I would be equally fine with this text ("No more than a total of a /16 equivalent may be transferred under these provisions within any 6 month period." or similar) or with Jason's ("An organization may only qualify under 8.5.7 once every 6 months, unless they can also demonstrate growth of IPv4 utilization of at least half of the amount of specified transfers since the previous transfer pre-authorization or approval.")
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Scott
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
> 
> Simple to resolve for the 6-month horizon —
> 
> … Such that no more than a total of a /16 equivalent may be transferred under these provisions within any 6 month period. …
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> > On Feb 3, 2017, at 07:19 , David R Huberman <daveid at panix.com <mailto:daveid at panix.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I thought of a possible problem with the anti-abuse language -- all versions of it.  Let me talk it out.
> >
> > An organization has a /19.
> > It has growing products, and wants another /19 for its 1 or 2 year need.
> > It wants to avail itself of the new language.
> > It is able to buy a /20 from Buyer A, and a /20 from Buyer B.
> >
> > It closes the deal with Buyer A first, and transfers at ARIN using the proposed language.
> >
> > How does it use any version we've discussed (Jason's various proposals, the current text, etc) to transfer the space it buys from Buyer B?
> >
> >
> > (In all discussion, yes, you can always use the other sections of 8.5, but let's stick to the spirit of this policy language, which is meant to help smaller and mid-size networks double their holdings without needs testing.)
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> > Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> --
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> 
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com <mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006 <tel:(571)%20266-0006>
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170211/8726545f/attachment.htm>