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

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Mon May 13 11:16:18 EDT 2019


I don't think it should be regardless of the size. That must always be a 
limit.

If it's over, it's over and anything little left should favor newcomers 
to make sure they can properly exist in the Internet and do business in 
Dual-Stack. Leaving to any prefix size just make it more difficult for 
new businesses which always help to balance the whole ecosystem. Having 
a limit is the most reasonable thing always in a scenario like this.

Fernando

On 13/05/2019 12:11, Steven Ryerse via ARIN-PPML wrote:
>
> Real life may be that larger sizes never come available, but if the 
> size does come available and an org is next on the list and it can be 
> justified within ARIN’s normal policies, then it should be assigned 
> regardless of size.  +1 to this comment.
>
> /Steven Ryerse/
>
> /President/
>
> /100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338/
>
> /770.656.1460 - Cell/
>
> /770.399.9099 - Office/
>
> /770.392.0076 - Fax/
>
> Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png℠Eclipse 
> Networks, Inc.
>
> ^        Conquering Complex Networks ^℠ ^
>
> *From:* ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> *On Behalf Of *Tom Pruitt
> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2019 10:39 AM
> *To:* David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Recommendation 
> Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests
>
> My biggest objection is limiting of an organization to a specific 
> size.    Although I realize ARIN can change policies, I believe if an 
> organization has in good faith followed the existing rules and been 
> put on the waiting list that they should not come away with nothing 
> especially those that were on the list before the current suspension 
> began.   If those organizations were watching the list, and moving up, 
> it is likely that they have made business decisions based on that data 
> with the assumption that they would get an allocation at some point.  
>  I believe the proposed allocation limit is being discussed as a 
> method to discourage bad actors from receiving address space and then 
> just holding them in order to sell them at a profit once they are 
> allowed, but as you stated “the waiting list is primarily a mechanism 
> to ensure resources are not stuck at ARIN”, that has nothing to do 
> with the size of an organization requesting resources.     I can 
> support an allocation limit per allocation, and even extending the 
> time an organization must wait before  getting back on the wait list.  
> That being said, if an organization is willing to wait on the list 
> until the resources are available then they should get the allocation.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom Pruitt
>
> Network Engineer
>
> Stratus Networks
>
> stratus_networks_logo_FINAL
>
> *From:* David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2019 3:44 PM
> *To:* Tom Pruitt <tpruitt at stratusnet.com <mailto:tpruitt at stratusnet.com>>
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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
>
>     stratus_networks_logo_FINAL
>
>     *From:* ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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> <mailto:info at arin.net>
>
>     *To: *
>
>     	
>
>     arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
>     experience any issues.
>
>
> -- 
>
> ===============================================
> 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
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190513/4b75dd01/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190513/4b75dd01/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 15673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190513/4b75dd01/attachment-0002.png>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list