<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><br></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Richard J. Letts <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rjletts@uw.edu" target="_blank">rjletts@uw.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">My preference is to apply the policy change as written (with the minor editorial change substituting "criterion" for "criteria".)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">+1</div>--<br>Brian<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Thank you<br>
<span class=""><font color="#888888">Richard Letts<br>
</font></span><span class="im"><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a>] On<br>
> Behalf Of David Farmer<br>
</span><span class="im">> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 9:23 PM<br>
> To: ARIN PPML <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
</span><div class=""><div class="h5">> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization<br>
> Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy<br>
><br>
> As shepherd, I need additional feedback on this, I need a better sense of<br>
> what the community wants here.<br>
><br>
> Should we move forward more or less as-is, with a minor editorial change,<br>
> substituting "criterion" for "criteria"?<br>
><br>
> Or, does the community want to work on a way to address the concerns<br>
> raised but Jason?<br>
><br>
> Your input please.<br>
><br>
> Thanks<br>
><br>
> On 1/29/16 10:00 , Jason Schiller wrote:<br>
> > McTim,<br>
> ><br>
> > WRT some other tangible and verifiable claim to show there was a real<br>
> > commitment to use half the address space within one year...<br>
> ><br>
> > I think there are 3 choices:<br>
> ><br>
> > 1. Very vague<br>
> ><br>
> > Something like "there must be some tangible and verifiable claim to<br>
> > show there was a real commitment to use half the address space within<br>
> > one year and not just a future projection or business case"<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > 2. Open ended with some guidance for ARIN staff:<br>
> ><br>
> > Something like "there must be some tangible and verifiable claim to<br>
> > show there was a real commitment to use half the address space within<br>
> > one year and not just a future projection or business case. Some<br>
> > examples include:<br>
> > - list of equipment in hand to be numbered counting at least 25% of<br>
> > requested IP size<br>
> > - invoices showing equipment purchases demonstrating a commitment to<br>
> > buy equipment to be numbered counting at least 25% of requested IP<br>
> > size<br>
> > - invoices showing equipment purchases demonstrating a commitment to<br>
> > buy equipment to be numbered counting at least 50% of requested IP<br>
> > size within one year<br>
> > - lease agreements for real estate supporting equipment that is<br>
> > appropratly sized to support equipment to be numbered counting at<br>
> > least 50% of requested IP size<br>
> ><br>
> > 3. specific criterion<br>
> ><br>
> > ----<br>
> ><br>
> > I don't know what it the right answer here, and suspect it has more to<br>
> > do with what the community is comfortable with.<br>
> ><br>
> > On one end of the spectrum is choice 1. This allows ARIN to do the<br>
> > right thing. But this also is not clear about what the community<br>
> > expects, and ARIN may act in a way that is counter to what is<br>
> > anticipated, and may seem like ARIN is being arbitrary or has too much<br>
> > leeway to screw with requestors.<br>
> ><br>
> > The opposite end of the spectrum is choice 3. This sets a very clear<br>
> > list of what qualifies. Hammering out that list may be very<br>
> > difficult, and it is unlikely to be complete. This will leave little<br>
> > or no room for ARIN to do the right thing and approve a request that<br>
> > is justified, but not one of the criterion listed.<br>
> ><br>
> > Choice 2 is the middle ground. Where we have a not necessarily<br>
> > complete list of criterion (so somewhat less difficulty in drawing up<br>
> > the list) that creates a very clear expectation of what ARIN should<br>
> > accept (and reduces the possibility that ARIN may act in a way that is<br>
> > counter to what is anticipated, and may seem like ARIN is being<br>
> > arbitrary or has too much leeway to screw with requestors) with<br>
> > respect to criterion clearly defined, while also allowing ARIN to do<br>
> > the right thing with similar types of proof that are not explicitly<br>
> > listed as criterion (this has somewhat higher risk that ARIN may act<br>
> > in a way that is counter to what is anticipated, and may seem like<br>
> > ARIN is being arbitrary or has too much leeway to screw with<br>
> > requestors, but less risk than option 1 as the criterion should serve<br>
> > as good guidance)<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > So two open questions to the community?<br>
> ><br>
> > 1. Is the community most comfortable with:<br>
> > A. totally vague and open-ended such as "there must be some<br>
> > tangible and verifiable claim to show there was a real commitment to<br>
> > use half the address space within one year and not just a future<br>
> > projection or business case"<br>
> ><br>
> > B. A vague statement with some guidance as to some acceptable<br>
> > forms of tangible verifiable proof of a real commitment to use half<br>
> > the IP address within one year.<br>
> ><br>
> > C. A very clear list of what proof is considered acceptable<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > 2. If the community prefers B. guidance or C. a very clear list then<br>
> > what sort of things would the community like to see on that list?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:27 AM, McTim <<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">dogwallah@gmail.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jason Schiller<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > I support the removal of the 30 day utilization as it is<br>
> > unreasonable for any larger end-site, who may have a real need<br>
> > for say a /16, with 65,000 desktops arriving on a loading doc<br>
> > next week, but an inability to unbox, configure and deploy<br>
> > 16,384 to the various office locations in 30 days.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > agreed.<br>
> ><br>
> > However, this is the only provision that has a real, tangible,<br>
> > and verifiable claim. Without this check justified need for end<br>
> > users simply becomes a 1 year future looking projection, and<br>
> > with sufficient arm waving an easy end run around justified need<br>
> > for any end user with no IP space or if they are efficiently<br>
> > using what they currently hold.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > good point!<br>
> ><br>
> > I could get on board if the maximum sized block permitted on a<br>
> > purely future looking projection was a /24 and you had to use it<br>
> > prior to getting more.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > +1<br>
> ><br>
> > I could certainly get on board if there were some other tangible<br>
> > and verifiable claim to show there was a real commitment to use<br>
> > half the address space within one year.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Would this language suffice, or would we need a metric of some sort?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Regards,<br>
> ><br>
> > McTim<br>
> ><br>
> > __Jason<br>
> ><br>
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Brian Jones <<a href="mailto:bjones@vt.edu">bjones@vt.edu</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:bjones@vt.edu">bjones@vt.edu</a>>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Looks good to me Dave. I am okay with using criteria or<br>
> > criterion, however using the strict definition it looks as<br>
> > though criterion is the proper singular form.<br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > Brian<br>
> ><br>
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:54 PM, David Farmer<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">farmer@umn.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">farmer@umn.edu</a>>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > The following is the proposed update for ARIN-2015-3:<br>
> > Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4<br>
> > Policy based on strong support in Montreal.<br>
> ><br>
> > Beyond deleting the 25% bullet as the policy says, their<br>
> > are editorial changes as follows to the remaining<br>
> > text;<br>
> ><br>
> > - It looks weird to have single item bullet list, so<br>
> > merge the two remaining sentence fragments into a single<br>
> > sentence.<br>
> > - Change "are" to "is", since there is only one<br>
> > remaining criteria<br>
> > - Use of "criteria" as a singular is common usage, even<br>
> > though technically it's plural.<br>
> > - Resulting in "The basic criteria that must be met is a<br>
> > 50% utilization rate within one year."<br>
> ><br>
> > The remaining and resulting text for 4.3.3 is now<br>
> > included in the policy text, for editorial clarity. The<br>
> > original staff and legal suggested removing the RFC2050<br>
> > reference and also pointed out that<br>
> > 4.2.3.6 also has a 25% immediate use clause and a<br>
> > RFC2050 reference.<br>
> ><br>
> > Feedback in Montreal was that deleting the 25% immediate<br>
> > use was a nice bite-sized change, and we shouldn't try<br>
> > to do more than that with this change, so those changes<br>
> > are not included at this time.<br>
> ><br>
> > Any additional feedback or comments are appreciated.<br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks<br>
> ><br>
> > ---------<br>
> ><br>
> > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization<br>
> > requirement in end-user IPv4 policy<br>
> ><br>
> > Date: 27 January 2015<br>
> ><br>
> > Problem Statement:<br>
> ><br>
> > End-user policy is intended to provide end-users with a<br>
> > one year supply of IP addresses. Qualification for a<br>
> > one-year supply requires the network operator to utilize<br>
> > at least 25% of the requested addresses within 30 days.<br>
> > This text is unrealistic and should be removed.<br>
> ><br>
> > First, it often takes longer than 30 days to stage<br>
> > equipment and start actually using the addresses.<br>
> ><br>
> > Second, growth is often not that regimented; the<br>
> > forecast is to use X addresses over the course of a<br>
> > year, not to use 25% of X within 30 days.<br>
> ><br>
> > Third, this policy text applies to additional address<br>
> > space requests. It is incompatible with the requirements<br>
> > of other additional address space request justification<br>
> > which indicates that 80% utilization of existing space<br>
> > is sufficient to justify new space. If a block is at<br>
> > 80%, then often (almost always?) the remaining 80% will<br>
> > be used over the next 30 days and longer. Therefore the<br>
> > operator cannot honestly state they will use 25% of the<br>
> > ADDITIONAL space within 30 days of receiving it; they're<br>
> > still trying to use their older block efficiently.<br>
> ><br>
> > Fourth, in the face of ARIN exhaustion, some ISPs are<br>
> > starting to not give out /24 (or larger) blocks. So the<br>
> > justification for the 25% rule that previously existed<br>
> > (and in fact, applied for many years) is no longer germane.<br>
> ><br>
> > Policy statement:<br>
> ><br>
> > Remove the 25% utilization criteria bullet point from<br>
> > NRPM 4.3.3.<br>
> ><br>
> > Resulting text:<br>
> ><br>
> > 4.3.3. Utilization rate<br>
> ><br>
> > Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in<br>
> > justifying a new<br>
> > assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show<br>
> > exactly how<br>
> > previous address assignments have been utilized and must<br>
> > provide<br>
> > appropriate details to verify their one-year growth<br>
> > projection.<br>
> ><br>
> > The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization<br>
> > rate within one year.<br>
> ><br>
> > A greater utilization rate may be required based on<br>
> > individual network<br>
> > requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more<br>
> > information on<br>
> > utilization guidelines.<br>
> ><br>
> > Comments:<br>
> > a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate<br>
> > b.Anything else<br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > ================================================<br>
> > David Farmer Email: <a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">farmer@umn.edu</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">farmer@umn.edu</a>><br>
> > Office of Information Technology<br>
> > University of Minnesota<br>
> > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: <a href="tel:1-612-626-0815" value="+16126260815">1-612-626-0815</a><br>
> > <tel:<a href="tel:1-612-626-0815" value="+16126260815">1-612-626-0815</a>><br>
> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: <a href="tel:1-612-812-9952" value="+16128129952">1-612-812-9952</a><br>
> > <tel:<a href="tel:1-612-812-9952" value="+16128129952">1-612-812-9952</a>><br>
> > ================================================<br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > PPML<br>
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>>).<br>
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> > <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> > Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> if<br>
> > you experience any issues.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > PPML<br>
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>>).<br>
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> > <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> > Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> if you<br>
> > experience any issues.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> ><br>
> _______________________________________________________<br>
> > Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a>>|<a href="tel:571-266-0006" value="+15712660006">571-266-0006</a> <tel:<a href="tel:571-266-0006" value="+15712660006">571-266-0006</a>><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > PPML<br>
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>>).<br>
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> > <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> > Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> if you<br>
> > experience any issues.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > Cheers,<br>
> ><br>
> > McTim<br>
> > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>
> > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > _______________________________________________________<br>
> > Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a>>|<a href="tel:571-266-0006" value="+15712660006">571-266-0006</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > PPML<br>
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN<br>
> > Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> > <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> > Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> ================================================<br>
> David Farmer Email: <a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">farmer@umn.edu</a><br>
> Office of Information Technology<br>
> University of Minnesota<br>
> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: <a href="tel:1-612-626-0815" value="+16126260815">1-612-626-0815</a><br>
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: <a href="tel:1-612-812-9952" value="+16128129952">1-612-812-9952</a><br>
> ================================================<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN<br>
> Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>