[arin-ppml] ARIN Draft Policy 2017-1: Clarify Slow Start for Transfers proposed updates

Jason Schiller jschiller at google.com
Mon May 8 13:42:08 EDT 2017


In a word no.

One could imagine a justification that says something like:
- on 12/05 we got a /16
   -- (assume we demonstrated efficient utilization of currently
        held space at this time)
- on 05/05 we demonstrated efficient use of the this space
   --  (assume efficient utilization of the new /16 is justifiable)
   --  (assume efficient utilization of previous held space is justifiable)
- at current consumption rate, a /14 represents a two year supply
- we anticipate that our product will continue growing for the for see-able

Can we have a /14 please?

Technically the request above makes no prediction about the future.  I
such a request would get approved, but it would be nice to formalize it.

The difference is in the past, under slow star, it was very clear what was
and what ARIN would accept.

The future-looking requirements are by necessity less clear, and hence the
result is less predictable, and can unexpectedly take longer.

Separation form section 4, removed a clearly stated, clearly understood,
well exercised, acceptable set of justification.

This policy is an attempt to re-instate that there is at least one very
defined justification that ARIN finds acceptable, and hence at least one
clearly defined and predictable path

Beyond that it tweaks the pre-existing slow start in two ways:
1. it opens it up to end-users
2. it makes allowances for the possibility of a pause due to the inability
    to get timely transfers.


On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:41 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On 8 May 2017, at 11:27 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com> wrote:
> Comments in line.
> ...
> In the absence of real data, people will often guess.  Some people guess
> better, some
> worse.  Some guesses are based on intricate algorithms, real data, and
> Fermi maths,
> others are just what feel right.  Either type can be multiple orders of
> magnitude off, or
> in the right ballpark.
> Do we really want to encourage data driven companies who previously
> requested less IP
> space then they needed because their requests have always been based on a
> real
> measure of consumption, and not addressing speculative growth, to instead
> require them
> to guess about the future?
> Jason -
>     Is there a reason that data-driven companies cannot make use of the
> existing transfer
>     policy, and create their anticipated 24-month need based on their
> actual past utilization?
>     I am having difficulty understanding why policy is needed specifically
> to enable use of
>     one particular type of forward-looking projection (i.e. forecasts
> based on past utilization.)
> Thanks,
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO

Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170508/fa6c3b41/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list