<div dir="ltr">I seem to have missed the this thread in last call, and hope you <div>will consider the discussion on the other thread: " Re: [arin-ppml] </div><div>ARIN-2015-3:(remove 30-day...) Staff interpretation needed"</div><div><br></div><div> I maintain that the 30-day [60-day for transfers] check has </div><div>been useful in mitigating abusively large requests, and </div><div>without it there is no teeth in the policy to prevent abuse.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I asked if I was wrong about this, please explain what </div><div>mechanisms are in place to mitigate an end-user asking for </div><div>approval for a 10 year supply of addresses on the grounds that </div><div>if things go really really well, it will only be a 2 year supply?</div><div><br></div><div>I heard no response to indicate there was any mechanism.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I asked staff about information about stats that might help </div><div>determine what level of push back ARIN provides against two </div><div>year projected need in general, and if that push back would be </div><div>sufficient to prevent outlandishly large claims. </div><div><br></div><div>We found that 50% - 75% of all requests are approved with</div><div>past utilization more heavily weighed. </div><div><br></div><div>It remains unclear what level of oversight ARIN has to </div><div>question future looking projections. John Curran provided</div><div>some text about approvals of future looking projections.</div><div><br></div><div><div> "When we [ARIN] ask organization for their forward </div><div> projections, we [ARIN] also ask them to provide details </div><div> to show how they've arrived at their projections. We [ARIN] </div><div> take into account factors such as new networks, locations, </div><div> products, services they plan on offering (and this includes </div><div> consideration of anticipated address utilization within the </div><div> first 30 days for end-users.) </div></div><div><br></div><div>From the text John provided it seems one could get IP </div><div>addresses solely on future looking plans which are </div><div>unverifiable. As such an end-user could easily get a 10</div><div>year supply of addresses simply by providing very </div><div>optimistic deployment plans for the next 24 months. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I asked if I was not wrong about this, then did people realize </div><div>that this policy is basically an end-run around giving out </div><div>addresses based on need when they voted to move this</div><div>policy forward?</div><div><br></div><div>I heard no response to this.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>__Jason</div><div> </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:45 AM, David Farmer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">farmer@umn.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As shepherd for this policy I welcome any additional last call<br>
feedback for this policy. It is especially important to speak up if<br>
you feel there are any issues remaining that need to be considered.<br>
But, even if you simply support the policy as written that is<br>
important and useful feedback as well.<br>
<br>
The last call period formally continues through, Monday, May 9th, and<br>
the AC will consider the feedback during its scheduled call on<br>
Thursday, May 19th.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:38 PM, ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 20 April 2016 and decided to<br>
> send the following to last call:<br>
><br>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization<br>
> requirement in end-user IPv4 policy<br>
><br>
> Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should<br>
> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This last call will<br>
> expire on 9 May 2016. After last call the AC will conduct their<br>
> last call review.<br>
><br>
> The draft policy text is below and available at:<br>
> <a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/</a><br>
><br>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:<br>
> <a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html</a><br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
><br>
> Communications and Member Services<br>
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)<br>
><br>
><br>
> ## * ##<br>
><br>
><br>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3<br>
> Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy<br>
><br>
> AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number<br>
> Resource Policy:<br>
><br>
> ARIN 2015-3 contributes to fair and impartial number resource administration<br>
> by removing from the NRPM text that is operationally unrealistic for the<br>
> reasons discussed in the problem statement. This proposal is technically<br>
> sound, in that the removal of the text will more closely align with the way<br>
> staff applies the existing policy in relation to 8.3 transfers. There was<br>
> strong community support for the policy on PPML and at ARIN 36, which was<br>
> confirmed at ARIN 37. There was a suggestion to replace this text with an<br>
> alternate requirement. However, the community consensus was to move forward<br>
> with the removal alone.<br>
><br>
> The staff and legal review also suggested removing RFC2050 references and<br>
> pointed out that 4.2.3.6 has an additional 25% immediate use clause,<br>
> community feedback was to deal with those issues separately.<br>
><br>
> Problem Statement:<br>
><br>
> End-user policy is intended to provide end-users with a one year supply of<br>
> IP addresses. Qualification for a one-year supply requires the network<br>
> operator to utilize 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 equipment and start<br>
> actually using the addresses.<br>
><br>
> Second, growth is often not that regimented; the forecast is to use X<br>
> addresses over the course of a year, not to use 25% of X within 30 days.<br>
><br>
> Third, this policy text applies to additional address space requests. It is<br>
> incompatible with the requirements of other additional address space request<br>
> justification which indicates that 80% utilization of existing space is<br>
> sufficient to justify new space. If a block is at 80%, then often (almost<br>
> always?) the remaining 80% will be used over the next 30 days and longer.<br>
> Therefore the operator cannot honestly state they will use 25% of the<br>
> ADDITIONAL space within 30 days of receiving it; they're still trying to use<br>
> their older block efficiently.<br>
><br>
> Fourth, in the face of ARIN exhaustion, some ISPs are starting to not give<br>
> out /24 (or larger) blocks. So the justification for the 25% rule that<br>
> previously existed (and in fact, applied for many years) is no longer<br>
> germane.<br>
><br>
> Policy statement:<br>
><br>
> Remove the 25% utilization criteria bullet point from 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 justifying a new<br>
> assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how previous<br>
> address assignments have been utilized and must provide appropriate details<br>
> to verify their one-year growth projection.<br>
><br>
> The basic criterion that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one<br>
> year.<br>
><br>
> A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network<br>
> requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on utilization<br>
> guidelines.<br>
><br>
> Comments:<br>
><br>
> a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate<br>
><br>
> b.Anything else<br>
><br>
> #####<br>
><br>
> ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT<br>
><br>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3<br>
> Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy<br>
> Date of Assessment: 16 February 2016<br>
><br>
> ___<br>
> 1. Summary (Staff Understanding)<br>
><br>
> This proposal would remove the 25% utilization (within 30 days of issuance)<br>
> criteria bullet point from NRPM 4.3.3.<br>
><br>
> ___<br>
> 2. Comments<br>
><br>
> A. ARIN Staff Comments<br>
> This policy would more closely align with the way staff applies the existing<br>
> policy in relation to 8.3 transfers. Because there is no longer an IPv4 free<br>
> pool and many IPv4 requests are likely to be satisfied by 8.3 transfers, the<br>
> adoption of this policy should have no major impact on operations and could<br>
> be implemented as written.<br>
><br>
> Note that both NRPM 4.3.3 and NRPM 4.2.3.6 contain references to obsolete<br>
> RFC 2050. Additionally, 4.2.3.6 references the 25% immediate use (within 30<br>
> days of issuance) requirement.<br>
><br>
> Staff suggests removing the first two sentences of 4.2.3.6 to remove the<br>
> references to RFC 2050 and the 25% requirement. Additionally, staff suggests<br>
> removing the reference to the obsolete RFC 2050 in section 4.3.3.<br>
><br>
> B. ARIN General Counsel – Legal Assessment<br>
> No material legal risk in this policy.<br>
><br>
> ___<br>
> 3. Resource Impact<br>
><br>
> This policy would have minimal resource impact from an implementation<br>
> aspect. It is estimated that implementation would occur immediately after<br>
> ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed in<br>
> order to implement:<br>
> * Updated guidelines and internal procedures<br>
> * Staff training<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>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--<br>
===============================================<br>
David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>
Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>
Office of Information Technology<br>
University of Minnesota<br>
2218 University Ave SE Phone: <a href="tel:612-626-0815" value="+16126260815">612-626-0815</a><br>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: <a href="tel:612-812-9952" value="+16128129952">612-812-9952</a><br>
===============================================<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<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.</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace"><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial"><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace">_______________________________________________________<br></font><div><font face="'courier new', monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>|571-266-0006</font></div><div><font face="'courier new', monospace"><br></font></div></span></div></font></div>
</div>