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

Chris Woodfield chris at semihuman.com
Thu Jan 18 18:26:05 EST 2018


Hi David,

Section 4 requests are still relevant for the waiting list and critical infrastructure, but little else. That said, there have been efforts in the past to obliterate Section 4 wholesale and replace it with a much more concise text, but those never had much support. I’d be happy to try again in the name of simplification, but that would be an entirely separate proposal.

-C

> On Dec 7, 2017, at 9:37 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 <mailto: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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/4/2017 1:30 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
>>> Scott,  how would you feel about this proposed updated problem statement which focuses on the current issue rather than the past.
>>> 
>>> Andrew
>>> 
>>> 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 all ISPs an initial /21 for Section 8 transfers. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11/21/2017 9:19 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>>>> I’d be ok with a /21, but there’s nothing magical about that size in a post-exhaustion world. I’d rather base a loosening on actual transfer statistics, and consider doing so for both allocations and assignments. 
>>>> 
>>>> Scott
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 21, 2017, at 7:28 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net <mailto:andrew.dul at quark.net>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> It sounds like our recollections of what we intended for ISP initial allocations have diverged. I will admit when I drafted the problem statement I did not go back through email to see if there was anything about this issue.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Assuming we harmonize the problem statement, would you prefer the /24 as initial no questions asked size or a /21?
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do others prefer?
>>>>> 
>>>>> .Andrew
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 21, 2017, at 2:52 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I believe this problem statement is incorrect, and therefore oppose the policy proposal as-is.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 8.5.4 was intended (by me, as one of the authors, and in PPML discussions I just pulled up) to allow ISPs to transfer a /24 without justification.  It was *not* intended to "match the previous policy" in 4.2.2.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 8.5.5 reads "8.5.5. Block size
>>>>>> Organizations may qualify for the transfer of a larger initial block, or an additional block, by providing documentation to ARIN which details the use of at least 50% of the requested IPv4 block size within 24 months. An officer of the organization shall attest to the documentation provided to ARIN."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The intention was that any ISP needing a /21 would need to "provide documentation to ARIN which details the use of at least 50% of the requested IPv4 block size within 24 months", with officer attestation to same.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If that policy is deemed insufficient, and we believe it's better to allow transfers of up to /21 without providing documentation to ARIN and officer attestation of such, then this proposal would need to be re-written with a new problem statement justifying that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Scott
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:40 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 16 November 2017, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced "ARIN-prop-244: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4 ISP Transfers" to Draft Policy status.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9 is below and can be found at:
>>>>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_9.html <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_9.html>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>>>>>> * Technically Sound
>>>>>> * Supported by the Community
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The PDP can be found at:
>>>>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>>>>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sean Hopkins
>>>>>> Policy Analyst
>>>>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4 ISP Transfers
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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. The intent of the new 8.5.4 was to match the previous policy. This policy is intended to clarify this issue. It was noted that ARIN staff current operational practice is to allow ISPs an initial /21 for Section 8 transfers.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Policy statement:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Add the following to 8.5.4
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ISP organizations without direct assignments or allocations from ARIN qualify for an initial allocation of up to a /21.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Comments:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180118/f2330e04/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list