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

Wed Jan 24 10:38:33 EST 2018

While there’s some truth to that, it was also the reality under which we operated when that /21 was coming from the free pool rather than from the transfer market.

Admittedly, the price penalty was a bit higher because that was under an older fee structure which had higher prices for ISPs, but, as the old Churchill joke ends… “Madam, the first question established what you are, now we are merely haggling over price.”

So, given that, do you really believe we need to place additional limits on transfers that didn’t exist on the free pool?

Also, even with the /24 limit, under current policy, they can immediately turn around, claim they’ve used that /24 and with officer attestation get an additional /23, then turn around again and get an additional /22 which would leave them only 1 /24 short of a /21 (which they could turn around and immediately obtain unto an additional /21 under the same policy). So we essentially already allow this transaction, but the question is how many hoops do we want to add to the process.

I’m usually the one on the other side of this argument, but under the current circumstances, even I think it’s kind of silly.

Owen

> On Jan 24, 2018, at 7:17 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com> wrote:
> 
> I oppose.  
> 
> 2016-4 was an attempt to replace the slow-start boot strap of get a /24 (or more) 
> from your upstream, put it into use, then use that to qualify to get your own IP space from ARIN.
> 
> The transfer slow-start boot strapping is to give the first /24 with no justification, 
> put it to use, then double (just as you did under slow start).
> 
> Essentially changing this to a /21 allows roughly 80% of ARIN members
> to be able to get all the IPv4 address space they could even need with 
> no justification if they are willing to call themselves an ISP, and pay the 
> appropriate fees.
> 
> I oppose a non-needs based (or simply put a money based) justification
> system on the grounds that does not provide IP addresses to those who need
> them, but rather to those who are more willing to spend, favoring services that
> generate the most revenue per IP. 
> 
> I even more strongly oppose a non-needs based justification that only benifits
> some small portion of the community.  This proposal is essentially a non-needs
> based justification for anyone who needs a /21 or less and is willing to pay an 
> extra $400 annually for up to a /22 or, and extra $900 annually for up to a /21.
> 
> 
> Under NRPM version 2016.2 - 13 July 2016
> https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/archive/nrpm_20160713.pdf <https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/archive/nrpm_20160713.pdf>
> 
> For an ISP request for ARIN IP space, 4.2.2.1.1 required them to 
> show utilization of currently held IPv4 space.
> 
> 1. They could use the utilization of their provider's /24 along with
> the promise of renumbering to justify getting their own /24
> 
> An ISP could meet the 4.2.2.1.1 demonstration of utilization and
> get additional space by showing the 3 month growth projection under
> 4.2.2.1.3.
> 
> (replacing their provider supplied addressing can be
> included in the ask if they promose to return under 4.2.2.1.4)
> 
> Or doubling under slow start 4.2.1.4.
> 
> 
> 2016-4 came along to remove the need to get IPs from your upstream.
> 
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html>
> 
> 
> Replace Section 4.2.2 with:
> 
> 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 for specified transfers, or three months otherwise. 
> 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."
> 
> At that time the difference between ARIN IP space was a 90 day supply
> versus a two tear supply on the transfer market.
> 
> It also seemingly removed the following sections:
> 4.2.2.1. ISP Requirements
> 4.2.2.1.1. Use of /24
> 4.2.2.1.2. Efficient Utilization
> 4.2.2.1.3. Three Months
> 4.2.2.1.4. Renumber and Return 
> 
> It was my impression that ARIN would not issue a /21 if it was more than a 90 day
> supply.  
> 
> 2016-2 came along and changes the time frame to sync pre-approval for transfers
> and approval for the waiting list.
> 
> It seeming updates the non-existant section 4.2.2.1.3 from 3 months to 24.
> and 4.2.4.3 to 24 months.
> 
> This is what creates the problem where now an initial ISP can request a /21
> without requiring 
> 
> I do not believe the intent was to give ISPs a /21 even if it is larger than a, then 
> 90 day, or now two year supply.  I suggest that if more than a /24 is desired, they can get up 
> to a /21 if it is less than a 2 year supply, and subsequently need to show utilization. 
> That means a /21 is not entirely justification free like the /24 is.
> 
> __Jason
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
> Fully support the direction you are now taking this.
> 
> Owen
> 
>> On Jan 20, 2018, at 9:16 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
>> 
>> I think the burden is the potential to have to rejustify an ISP's initial allocation when being fulfilled by transfer.  The inconsistency seems inefficient and creates confusion; there appears to be support for eliminating the inconsistency.  With slightly more support for changing section 8 to be consistent with section 4, rather than the other way around.   
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Quoting myself:
>> 
>>> If there are organizations transferring blocks larger than a /24 for whom officer-attested justification is burdensome (to them or to ARIN) I’d like to understand what is burdensome, so we can figure out how to reduce that burden. If not, then implementing section 8 as written seems appropriate until we identify a reason to change it. 
>> 
>> 
>> Do you know of any organizations transferring blocks larger than a /24 for whom officer-attested justification is burdensome (to them or to ARIN)?
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>> -- 
>> ===============================================
>> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu>
>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Minnesota   
>> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815 <tel:(612)%20626-0815>
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:(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 <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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20180124/94091392/attachment.htm>