[arin-ppml] ARIN-2024-5 Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation - Community Questions

[Tyler O'Meara]

Hi Bill,

I was thinking that both DNS zone operators as well as IXes would qualify for
the default /24 under either 4.2.2 or 4.3.2. I believe the 50% utilization rate
under 4.3.3 only applies for allocations larger than that minimum, and I am
comfortable with that being a requirement for anyone requesting more than a /24
from the 4.4 pool (though I'm happy to hear if anyone thinks otherwise).

I can envision both IXes and DNS zone operators having legitimate reasons to
want multiple /24s despite using less than 50% of the actual IP addresses.
However, all of the use cases I can think of (e.g. one organization running
multiple IXes, each with a distinct peering LAN) would qualify under 4.5
Multiple Discrete Networks (and in particular, 4.5.7).

Thanks,
Tyler


On Fri, 2025-02-21 at 16:38 -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 3:36 PM Tyler O'Meara via ARIN-PPML
> <arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
> > > Under 4.4:
> > > “ARIN will reserve a /15 equivalent of IPv4 address space for Critical
> > > Internet Infrastructure (CII) within the ARIN RIR service area.
> > > Allocations from this pool will be no smaller than a /24.”
> > > 
> > > and later under 4.4.2:, Root and ccTLD Allocations:
> > > “Root and ccTLD operators will provide justification of their need and
> > > certification of their status as currently active zone operators.”
> > > 
> > > - The proposal text (and, to be fair, the text it aims to replace) is
> > > silent on justification criteria for IX allocations larger than a /24. Our
> > > understanding is that absent explicit guidance, ARIN staff has used the
> > > justification language in Section 4.2.2 or 4.2.4 to evaluate these
> > > depending on the request type. Should the qualification criteria be made
> > > explicit in the proposed policy text? Should an alternate justification
> > > criteria be proposed for larger IX allocations under this section?
> > 
> > Rather than adding requirements to 4.4.1 or 4.4.2 I would add the following
> > (or similar) under 4.4: "Requests under this Section must be justified under
> > either Section 4.2 or 4.3 in addition to meeting the specific requirements
> > below". This makes it clear that 4.4 does not exempt a request from needing
> > to meet the usual ARIN policies, but that it is instead of "add on" you can
> > use to get access to the reserved pool rather than having to go to the
> > waitlist.
> 
> Hi Tyler,
> 
> This would have the effect of changing the draft's IXP initial
> requirements from "must have 3 participants not under common control"
> to something along the lines of "must have 128ish participants within
> 24 months." (NRPM 4.3.3) It could similarly obligate the DNS operators
> to employ 128 servers within the /24.
> 
> That seems a little challenging to me. What are your thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
>