[arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

Fri May 10 18:32:17 EDT 2019

There are organizations of all sizes with direct unmet needs for address
blocks of all sizes up to /16 or larger.  The waitlist is *not* intended to
meet all such requests: it simply can't be done, because the free pool is
empty, and there is way more demand than supply at a price of ~$0.  Rather,
the waitlist is intended to make sure that returned/reclaimed addresses are
not stuck at ARIN, but rather distributed in a way that serves a
useful purpose.

Organizations that need large blocks of address space should be going to
the market to acquire them, and transferring them to meet their justified
need.  Some organizations that need smaller blocks of addresses, but not
urgently, can try to get them via the waitlist.  But the more larger
allocations we allow from reclaimed space, the fewer such organizations can
be served, and the longer they'll need to wait.  So it makes sense to me to
have a relatively stringent maximum wait list allocation, particularly
since that also reduces the financial reward to fraudulent actors and/or
those attempting to game the system.

So I support this policy, including the /22 maximum.

-Scott (representing only myself)

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:19 PM Michael Williams <
michael.williams at glexia.com> wrote:

> Representing ARIN member organisation GLEXI-3 *I do not support* the
> policy as written. Maximum wait list allocation should be at least a /21.
> We have a direct unmet need for a /21 right now.
>
> My argument is if an organisation receives an allocation from the wait
> list they should have to return that allocation directly to ARIN if not
> used. There should be no organisation to organisation transfer allowed for
> IP allocations received from the wait list. That’d eliminate all these
> crazy /16 allocation sales that we see now.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 10 May 2019, at 17:36, Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca> wrote:
>
> David,
>
>
>
> I would rather see a limit or delay on the number of times an organization
> can go back to the waitlist than prevent organizations from getting any
> space from the wait list.
>
>
>
> Would I be more supportive if the number was larger? I don’t believe that
> is the right control mechanism, so no.
>
>
>
> Limiting the size to a /22 was a way of distributing fairly to as many
> organizations as possible and limiting the abuse vector.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> *On Behalf Of *David Farmer
> *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2019 4:44 PM
> *To:* Tom Pruitt <tpruitt at stratusnet.com>
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding
> NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests
>
>
>
> If /20 is too small is their another size you would propose? a /19 or a
> /18 maybe? Do you have an argument for why that is the right number?
>
>
>
> When the AC looked at this there was strong support for limiting the size
> of the organization that could qualify to ensure these resources went to
> smaller organizations. But there were varying opinions on what that size
> should be, /20 was just the option with the most support amongst the AC.
>
>
>
> This formulation also provides a limit on how many times an organization
> can go back to the waiting list, allowing smaller organizations more times
> to return to the waiting list, while limiting lager organization to fewer
> times to return to the waiting list.  And organizations that already have
> more than a /20 must go to the market.
>
>
>
> A /20 limit, gives a new organization (with no resources) the opportunity
> receive up to 5 allocations from the waiting list if they got a /22 each
> time.
>
> A /19 limit would allow a new ISP up to 9 allocations if they got a /22
> each time.
>
> A /18 limit would allow a new ISP up to 17 allocations if they got a /22
> each time.
>
>
>
> Please realize the waiting list is primarily a mechanism to ensure
> resources are not stuck at ARIN, it should not be seen as a reliable means
> of obtaining resources.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 2:45 PM Tom Pruitt <tpruitt at stratusnet.com> wrote:
>
> I do not support the new text, specifically the  limit of a /20 per
> organization.
>
>
>
> The limiting of an organization to an aggregate of a /20 is a huge
> hinderance of the ability of a smaller ISP to compete.  A smaller ISP that
> can win business on service and cost could lose that same business due to
> simply recouping the IPv4 costs.   Large ISPs will often give the IPs away
> to win the business, and it costs them nothing as they received their IPV4
> space for free.   Additionally, many smaller ISPs operate in outlying areas
> where IPv6 adoption will likely be slow, which will also hinder their
> ability to push IPv6.    I’m not sure at what point an organization becomes
> “large”, but the smaller organizations are the ones that will be hurt by
> this limit.
>
>
>
> What happens to organizations that are currently on the wait list that
> have an aggregate of a /20 or more?  Do they still get  a /22.  Some of
> those organizations have been on the list for over a year.   Assuming they
> played by the rules and made decisions based on the assumption that they
> would get an allotment of IPv4 addresses, denying them any addresses after
> they have waited a year or more could be very detrimental to them. These
> policy changes and decisions affect the smaller entities greatly, and they
> need some clarity.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom Pruitt
>
> Network Engineer
>
> Stratus Networks
>
>
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
>
> *From:* ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> *On Behalf Of *Andrew Dul
> *Sent:* Monday, May 6, 2019 4:09 PM
> *To:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding
> NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to bring your attention to another issue that may have been lost
> in the flurry of other emails.  We are currently in a 14 day feedback
> period for the AC's response to the Board's suspension of the wait-list.
> Please note the following updated text for the wait-list.  Your comments on
> this updated text are welcome.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> ===
>
> If no such block is available, the organization will be provided the
> option to be placed on a waiting list of pre-qualified recipients, listing
> both the block size, for which the organization is qualified, which in the
> case of the waiting list shall not be larger than a /22, and the smallest
> block size acceptable to the organization. An organization may not be added
> to the waiting list if it already holds IPv4 resources amounting in
> aggregate to more than a /20 of address space. Resources received via
> section 4.1.8 may not be transferred within 60 months of the issuance date.
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>
> *Subject: *
>
> [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet
> Requests
>
> *Date: *
>
> Mon, 29 Apr 2019 11:16:31 -0400
>
> *From: *
>
> ARIN <info at arin.net> <info at arin.net>
>
> *To: *
>
> arin-ppml at arin.net
>
>
>
> Subject:
>
> At their 16 January Meeting, the Board of Trustees suspended issuance of
> number resources under NRPM section 4.1.8.2. (Fulfilling Unmet Needs), and
> referred NRPM section 4.1.8 to the ARIN Advisory Council for their
> recommendation.
>
> The Advisory Council has provided its recommendation, and per ARIN's
> Policy Development Process, the recommendation is hereby submitted to the
> Public Policy Mailing List for a community discussion period of 14 days, to
> conclude on 13 May.
>
> Once completed, the Board of Trustees will review the AC’s recommendation
> and the PPML discussion.
>
> The full text of the Advisory Council's recommendation is below.
>
> Board of Trustees meeting minutes are available at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/board/meetings/2019_0116/
>
> For more details on the Policy Development Process, visit:
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
> Advisory Council recommendation:
>
> In accordance with section 10.2 of the ARIN Policy Development Process,
> the ARIN Advisory Council recommends the following actions to the Board of
> Trustees in response to the Board’s suspension of part of the operation of
> sections 4.1.8, 4.1.8.1 and 4.1.8.2 of the Numbering Resource Policy Manual:
>
> Replace section 4.1.8 as follows, then reinstate the full operation of
> sections 4.1.8, 4.1.8.1 and 4.1.8.2 immediately.
>
> 4.1.8. Unmet Requests
>
> In the event that ARIN does not have a contiguous block of addresses of
> sufficient size to fulfill a qualified request, ARIN will provide the
> requesting organization with the option to specify the smallest block size
> they’d be willing to accept, equal to or larger than the applicable minimum
> size specified elsewhere in ARIN policy. If such a smaller block is
> available, ARIN will fulfill the request with the largest single block
> available that fulfills the request.
>
> If no such block is available, the organization will be provided the
> option to be placed on a waiting list of pre-qualified recipients, listing
> both the block size, for which the organization is qualified, which in the
> case of the waiting list shall not be larger than a /22, and the smallest
> block size acceptable to the organization. An organization may not be added
> to the waiting list if it already holds IPv4 resources amounting in
> aggregate to more than a /20 of address space. Resources received via
> section 4.1.8 may not be transferred within 60 months of the issuance date.
>
> Repeated requests, in a manner that would circumvent 4.1.6, are not
> allowed: an organization may only receive one allocation, assignment, or
> transfer every 3 months, but ARIN, at its sole discretion, may waive this
> requirement if the requester can document a change in circumstances since
> their last request that could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time
> of the original request, and which now justifies additional space.
> Qualified requesters whose request cannot be immediately met will also be
> advised of the availability of the transfer mechanism in section 8.3 as an
> alternative mechanism to obtain IPv4 addresses.
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://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        Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://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/20190510/fd735392/attachment.htm>