[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4 ISP Transfers

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Thu Jan 18 18:03:15 EST 2018


>From the updated problem statement: If an organization applies under
section 8 first they are initially qualified for a /24, larger allocations
require additional documentation as noted in 8.5.5.

Again, whether a change in policy or staff practice, what do we want to
happen?

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> The existing language “up to a /21” is consistent with staff allowing you
> to obtain a /24 via transfer.
>
> Are you telling me that staff is refusing /21 transfers, but allowing /24
> transfers to new ISPs without further justification? If so, I would argue
> that current staff practice is in error vs. policy language.
>
> Owen
>
> On Jan 18, 2018, at 2:37 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
> Owen,
>
> Yep, that was an editing error, it should have been;
>
> 4.2.2. Initial allocation to ISPs
>
> All ISP organizations without direct assignments or allocations from ARIN
> qualify for an initial allocation of a /24. Organizations may qualify for a
> larger initial allocation by documenting how the requested allocation will
> be utilized within 24 months.
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>> I see no reason to move the boundary for an ISP initial allocation from
>> /21 to /24.
>>
>
> Well that seems to be staff intrupretation if you are getting an initial
> allocation via a transfer, how would you reslove this then?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>> I certainly see no reason for “up to a /24” as there’s nothing smaller
>> available and even if it were, it wouldn’t be useful in any foreseeable
>> environment.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2018, at 2:21 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>>
>> David,
>>
>> The resolution you suggest below seems like a different policy proposal
>> to me, one with a significantly broader scope than this draft policy has.
>> But I think it is a valid question for the community to consider, it's just
>> not really the problem statement in question for this Draft Policy.
>>
>> So, back within the scope of this Draft Policy as the shepherd, I plan to
>> push forward Andrew's updated Problem Statement with a Policy Statement
>> that harmonizes and simplifies the text in section 4.2.2 as an official
>> update to this Draft Policy to get the conversation moving again.
>>
>> The current text of 4.2.2 is;
>>
>> 4.2.2. Initial allocation to ISPs
>>
>> All ISP organizations without direct assignments or allocations from ARIN
>> qualify for an initial allocation of up to a /21, subject to ARIN's minimum
>> allocation size. Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation
>> by documenting how the requested allocation will be utilized within 24
>> months. ISPs renumbering out of their previous address space will be given
>> a reasonable amount of time to do so, and any blocks they are returning
>> will not count against their utilization.
>>
>> The text "subject to ARIN's minimum allocation size" seems extraneous.
>> And, post runout renumbering and returning any address space
>> seems unlikely, so let's just eliminate that whole sentence.
>>
>> I propose we simplify that to the following;
>>
>> 4.2.2. Initial allocation to ISPs
>>
>> All ISP organizations without direct assignments or allocations from ARIN
>> qualify for an initial allocation of up to a /24. Organizations may qualify
>> for a larger initial allocation by documenting how the requested allocation
>> will be utilized within 24 months.
>>
>> Below is the policy update that results;
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> --------
>>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4
>> ISP Transfers
>>
>> Problem Statement:
>>
>> It was noted in the ARIN 40 Policy Experience Report, that there is an
>> inconsistency in the initial block size for ISPs. Section 4.2.2 notes that
>> the initial ISP block size should be /21 whereas the initial block size in
>> 8.5.4 is noted as "minimum transfer size" which is effectively a /24. This
>> causes ISP organizations to be approved for different initial block size
>> depending on if they first apply for a transfer directly under section 8 or
>> if they apply for a block under section 4.  This policy is intended to
>> clarify this issue, by setting a consistent ISP initial IPv4 block size. It
>> was noted that ARIN staff current operational practice is to allow
>> qualified ISPs an initial /21 for Section 8 transfers when they first apply
>> and are approved under section 4.  If an organization applies under section
>> 8 first they are initially qualified for a /24, larger allocations require
>> additional documentation as noted in 8.5.5.
>>
>> Policy Statement:
>>
>> Change section 4.2.2 as follows;
>>
>> 4.2.2. Initial allocation to ISPs
>>
>> All ISP organizations without direct assignments or allocations from ARIN
>> qualify for an initial allocation of up to a /24. Organizations may qualify
>> for a larger initial allocation by documenting how the requested allocation
>> will be utilized within 24 months.
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:37 PM, David Huberman <daveid at panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for the clarification.  I think the staff practice is a
>>> reasonable approach and I don’t think change is needed in policy for this.
>>>
>>> The updated Problem Statement reveals the real issue here - the one we
>>> need to figure out as a community.   What to do about all the requests each
>>> month for IPv4 addresses under section 4?
>>>
>>> Is it time to pass a policy to direct staff to no longer accept section
>>> 4 requests (except the ones they still fill like critical infrastructure)?
>>> I wonder what the downside of such a policy would be - anyone know?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 7, 2017, at 11:47 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> It was noted to me by ARIN staff, that this updated problem statement
>>> doesn't accurately reflect ARIN's current practice.  Below I suggest
>>> another updated problem statement.
>>>
>>> *Problem Statement: *
>>> It was noted at the ARIN 40 Policy Experience Report, that there is an
>>> inconsistency in the initial block size for ISPs. Section 4.2.2 notes that
>>> the initial ISP block size should be /21 whereas the initial block size in
>>> 8.5.4 is noted as "minimum transfer size" which is effectively a /24. This
>>> causes ISP organizations to be approved for different initial block size
>>> depending on if they first apply apply for a transfer directly under
>>> section 8 or if they apply for a block under section 4.  This policy is
>>> intended to clarify this issue, by setting a consistent ISP initial IPv4
>>> block size. It was noted that ARIN staff current operational practice is to
>>> allow qualified ISPs an initial /21 for Section 8 transfers when they first
>>> apply and are approved under section 4.  If an organization applies under
>>> section 8 first they are initially qualified for a /24, larger allocations
>>> require additional documentation as noted in 8.5.5.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ===============================================
>> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Minnesota
>> 2218 University Ave SE
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=2218+University+Ave+SE&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>       Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815>
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
>> ===============================================
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=2218+University+Ave+SE&entry=gmail&source=g>
>       Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815>
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
> ===============================================
>
>
>


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20180118/d615ac1f/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list