Hi Bill and John,
Thank you for the thoughtful responses. As a purely process note, please
allow me to point out that what we have here, ARIN-prop-204, is merely a
policy proposal. I will do my best to answer comments and questions posed
inline, but they appear to relate to later steps in the process. At this
point, when I propose that this proposal be advanced to Draft Policy, the
only two tests are: Is there a clear problem statement and is that problem
statement in scope for the AC (for which I am in no way speaking on behalf
of right now). From my perspective, I am tending toward asserting that
these criteria have been met, but I am very much interested in opinions to
the contrary.
On to your comments.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, John Santos wrote:
I agree with Bill.
I am going to interpret this as agreeing with his oppostion, as the rest
of his post was questions.
It might be appropriate to drop needs testing for
small allocations simply because it is not worth the effort, but I don't
see a /16 as being small. Something in the range of /24 to /20 would
be better.
The author has expressed that he has thrown out the metric of /16 as a
basis for discussion. This proposal is couched in terms of reducing ARIN
staff processing load. If I am understanding the author correctly, setting
the bar at /16 will have a much greater effect on staffing load than a
lower bar. It may be that enough of the load is present at say /20 that a
substantial effect may be realized. It's OK that we talk about the setting
of this bar now, but it is not directly germane to the next step in the
PDP.
Another idea to ponder would be instead of dropping the need requirement,
we adopt a presumption of good faith for small allocations. ARIN would
simply take the word of the requester or recipient for small allocations
or transfers, but if it was later discovered the recipient was acting in
bad faith, the allocation could be revoked.
This just seems to me to be Not A Good Idea. I'd have to think on it
some to elaborate.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, John Springer <sprin...@inlandnet.com> wrote:
ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers
Policy statement:
Change the language in NRPM 8.3 after Conditions on the recipient of the
transfer: from "The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month
supply of IP address resources under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA."
to "For transfers larger than a /16 equivalent, the recipient must
demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month supply of IP address resources
under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA."
How would we go about assessing whether such changes prove harmful or
helpful?
What metrics does ARIN collect under this policy which can be
analyzed and presented here so we can consider expanding it to larger
transfers?
TBD? Speculative? The usual ways? I'm not sure I would advise inserting
that level of stuff in policy. It might not be germane at this point in
the PDP, but I will think on it as the process continues. I feel sure that
you know of: https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/index.html
ARIN staff has shown willing to provide stats not present there.
Does no justification mean no documentation?
This seems more philosophical. I hate to try to guess what your opinion
is from the proposition. I don't have much of one at this point.
What makes you think /16 is the right place to start testing this
idea? Traditionally /24 was the last no-justification request
accepted. Why is that not the right place to start testing a new
no-justification regime?
That the author chose this level to couch his proposal in does not seem to
make his problem statement unclear or out of scope. I take it from the
gist that you are more aligned with John Santos' opinion that "Something
in the range of /24 to /20 would be better."?
John Springer
For now I OPPOSE the proposal as written but I'd like to hear more.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
