I see the policy itself largely as a no-op. I have no objection for it going to the board, nor do I have any significant support for it to do so.
Owen > On May 12, 2016, at 18:53 , David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jason, > > Even though the last call period formally ended May 9th, I try my best > to consider all feedback received for a policy even following the > formal last call deadline, and while I can't speak for directly for > other AC members, I believe most of them do the same. However, when > feedback comes in late sometimes it might not get full consideration, > especially if it comes in immediately prior to one of our conference > calls. To help avoid this I explicitly noted when AC would be > considering the feedback. I will additionally note at this point it > is extremely important to get any additional feedback in ASAP to allow > the AC due time for its consideration prior to its May 19th conference > call. > > As for the issues and questions you have raise, I believe John and > Richard have been answering your questions. Further, I believe the > community consensus remains to move forward with removing the 25% > Immediate (30 day) use requirement for end users as this policy > suggests. I would specifically ask anyone who disagrees and thinks we > need to consider the issues more to speak up ASAP. > > Thanks. > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Jason Schiller <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> I seem to have missed the this thread in last call, and hope you >> will consider the discussion on the other thread: " Re: [arin-ppml] >> ARIN-2015-3:(remove 30-day...) Staff interpretation needed" >> >> I maintain that the 30-day [60-day for transfers] check has >> been useful in mitigating abusively large requests, and >> without it there is no teeth in the policy to prevent abuse. >> >> >> I asked if I was wrong about this, please explain what >> mechanisms are in place to mitigate an end-user asking for >> approval for a 10 year supply of addresses on the grounds that >> if things go really really well, it will only be a 2 year supply? >> >> I heard no response to indicate there was any mechanism. >> >> >> I asked staff about information about stats that might help >> determine what level of push back ARIN provides against two >> year projected need in general, and if that push back would be >> sufficient to prevent outlandishly large claims. >> >> We found that 50% - 75% of all requests are approved with >> past utilization more heavily weighed. >> >> It remains unclear what level of oversight ARIN has to >> question future looking projections. John Curran provided >> some text about approvals of future looking projections. >> >> "When we [ARIN] ask organization for their forward >> projections, we [ARIN] also ask them to provide details >> to show how they've arrived at their projections. We [ARIN] >> take into account factors such as new networks, locations, >> products, services they plan on offering (and this includes >> consideration of anticipated address utilization within the >> first 30 days for end-users.) >> >> From the text John provided it seems one could get IP >> addresses solely on future looking plans which are >> unverifiable. As such an end-user could easily get a 10 >> year supply of addresses simply by providing very >> optimistic deployment plans for the next 24 months. >> >> >> >> I asked if I was not wrong about this, then did people realize >> that this policy is basically an end-run around giving out >> addresses based on need when they voted to move this >> policy forward? >> >> I heard no response to this. >> >> Thanks, >> >> __Jason >> >> >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:45 AM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> As shepherd for this policy I welcome any additional last call >>> feedback for this policy. It is especially important to speak up if >>> you feel there are any issues remaining that need to be considered. >>> But, even if you simply support the policy as written that is >>> important and useful feedback as well. >>> >>> The last call period formally continues through, Monday, May 9th, and >>> the AC will consider the feedback during its scheduled call on >>> Thursday, May 19th. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:38 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 20 April 2016 and decided to >>>> send the following to last call: >>>> >>>> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization >>>> requirement in end-user IPv4 policy >>>> >>>> Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should >>>> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This last call will >>>> expire on 9 May 2016. After last call the AC will conduct their >>>> last call review. >>>> >>>> The draft policy text is below and available at: >>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ >>>> >>>> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: >>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Communications and Member Services >>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >>>> >>>> >>>> ## * ## >>>> >>>> >>>> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3 >>>> Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy >>>> >>>> AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number >>>> Resource Policy: >>>> >>>> ARIN 2015-3 contributes to fair and impartial number resource >>>> administration >>>> by removing from the NRPM text that is operationally unrealistic for the >>>> reasons discussed in the problem statement. This proposal is technically >>>> sound, in that the removal of the text will more closely align with the >>>> way >>>> staff applies the existing policy in relation to 8.3 transfers. There >>>> was >>>> strong community support for the policy on PPML and at ARIN 36, which >>>> was >>>> confirmed at ARIN 37. There was a suggestion to replace this text with >>>> an >>>> alternate requirement. However, the community consensus was to move >>>> forward >>>> with the removal alone. >>>> >>>> The staff and legal review also suggested removing RFC2050 references >>>> and >>>> pointed out that 4.2.3.6 has an additional 25% immediate use clause, >>>> community feedback was to deal with those issues separately. >>>> >>>> Problem Statement: >>>> >>>> End-user policy is intended to provide end-users with a one year supply >>>> of >>>> IP addresses. Qualification for a one-year supply requires the network >>>> operator to utilize at least 25% of the requested addresses within 30 >>>> days. >>>> This text is unrealistic and should be removed. >>>> >>>> First, it often takes longer than 30 days to stage equipment and start >>>> actually using the addresses. >>>> >>>> Second, growth is often not that regimented; the forecast is to use X >>>> addresses over the course of a year, not to use 25% of X within 30 days. >>>> >>>> Third, this policy text applies to additional address space requests. It >>>> is >>>> incompatible with the requirements of other additional address space >>>> request >>>> justification which indicates that 80% utilization of existing space is >>>> sufficient to justify new space. If a block is at 80%, then often >>>> (almost >>>> always?) the remaining 80% will be used over the next 30 days and >>>> longer. >>>> Therefore the operator cannot honestly state they will use 25% of the >>>> ADDITIONAL space within 30 days of receiving it; they're still trying to >>>> use >>>> their older block efficiently. >>>> >>>> Fourth, in the face of ARIN exhaustion, some ISPs are starting to not >>>> give >>>> out /24 (or larger) blocks. So the justification for the 25% rule that >>>> previously existed (and in fact, applied for many years) is no longer >>>> germane. >>>> >>>> Policy statement: >>>> >>>> Remove the 25% utilization criteria bullet point from NRPM 4.3.3. >>>> >>>> Resulting text: >>>> >>>> 4.3.3. Utilization rate >>>> >>>> Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in justifying a new >>>> assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how >>>> previous >>>> address assignments have been utilized and must provide appropriate >>>> details >>>> to verify their one-year growth projection. >>>> >>>> The basic criterion that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within >>>> one >>>> year. >>>> >>>> A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network >>>> requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on >>>> utilization >>>> guidelines. >>>> >>>> Comments: >>>> >>>> a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate >>>> >>>> b.Anything else >>>> >>>> ##### >>>> >>>> ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT >>>> >>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3 >>>> Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy >>>> Date of Assessment: 16 February 2016 >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> 1. Summary (Staff Understanding) >>>> >>>> This proposal would remove the 25% utilization (within 30 days of >>>> issuance) >>>> criteria bullet point from NRPM 4.3.3. >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> 2. Comments >>>> >>>> A. ARIN Staff Comments >>>> This policy would more closely align with the way staff applies the >>>> existing >>>> policy in relation to 8.3 transfers. Because there is no longer an IPv4 >>>> free >>>> pool and many IPv4 requests are likely to be satisfied by 8.3 transfers, >>>> the >>>> adoption of this policy should have no major impact on operations and >>>> could >>>> be implemented as written. >>>> >>>> Note that both NRPM 4.3.3 and NRPM 4.2.3.6 contain references to >>>> obsolete >>>> RFC 2050. Additionally, 4.2.3.6 references the 25% immediate use (within >>>> 30 >>>> days of issuance) requirement. >>>> >>>> Staff suggests removing the first two sentences of 4.2.3.6 to remove the >>>> references to RFC 2050 and the 25% requirement. Additionally, staff >>>> suggests >>>> removing the reference to the obsolete RFC 2050 in section 4.3.3. >>>> >>>> B. ARIN General Counsel – Legal Assessment >>>> No material legal risk in this policy. >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> 3. Resource Impact >>>> >>>> This policy would have minimal resource impact from an implementation >>>> aspect. It is estimated that implementation would occur immediately >>>> after >>>> ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be >>>> needed in >>>> order to implement: >>>> * Updated guidelines and internal procedures >>>> * Staff training >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PPML >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> =============================================== >>> David Farmer Email:[email protected] >>> 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 >>> =============================================== >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> _______________________________________________________ >> Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]|571-266-0006 >> > > > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > 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 > =============================================== > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any > issues.
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
