I Support this CI pool size increase. Rudi Daniel 784 430 9235 On Dec 1, 2014 8:09 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2014 (ARIN) > 2. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per > Section 4.4 (ARIN) > 3. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 > (ARIN) > 4. Weekly posting summary for [email protected] (Thomas Narten) > 5. Re: Multi-homing justification removed? (Owen DeLong) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:34:58 -0500 > From: ARIN <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2014 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed > > In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN > Advisory Council (AC) met on 20 November 2014. > > The AC recommended the following to the ARIN Board for adoption: > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA > and 8.2 Utilization Requirements > > The AC accepted the following Proposals as a Draft Policies: > > ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 > ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 > > The AC is continuing to work on the following: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove 7.1 [Maintaining IN-ADDRs] > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14: Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from > last-allocation to total-aggregate > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization > > Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:35:15 -0500 > From: ARIN <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI > Pool Size per Section 4.4 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed > > On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > "ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a Draft > Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html > > You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft > Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List. > > The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance > of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource > Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 > Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 > > Date: 25 November 2014 > > Problem Statement: > > At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North > America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly > within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical > infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we > project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global > interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure. > > Policy statement: > > Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations: > > Current text: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at > the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in > this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner > consistent with community expectations. > > Proposed text to replace current text entirely: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:35:29 -0500 > From: ARIN <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in > Section 4.10 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed > > On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > "ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10" as a Draft Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_22.html > > You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft > Policy 2014-22 on the Public Policy Mailing List. > > The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance > of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource > Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 > Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 > > Date: 25 November 2014 > > Problem Statement: > > The current section 4.10 Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 > Deployment creates an issue where a small new organization that requires > an IPv4 allocation or assignment would potentially receive a block that > today would be unroutable and therefore unusable for it intended purposes. > > Policy statement: > > Change > > "This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a > maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when > possible within that /10 block." > > To > > "This block will be subject to an allocation of /24. ARIN should use > sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block." > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:53:04 -0500 > From: Thomas Narten <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days. > > script run at: Fri Nov 28 00:53:03 EST 2014 > > Messages | Bytes | Who > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 60.00% | 3 | 55.51% | 18354 | [email protected] > 20.00% | 1 | 22.60% | 7473 | [email protected] > 20.00% | 1 | 21.89% | 7240 | [email protected] > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 100.00% | 5 |100.00% | 33067 | Total > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 16:04:21 -0800 > From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> > To: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed? > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > FWIW, Scott, your interpretation agrees with my recollection and my > intents along the way. > > I am not convinced that such a policy applied to the transfer market is a > good idea. I believe that portable blocks place sufficient demand on > internet resources that having a some number of hosts behind them (50%+) is > not an unreasonable requirement regardless of whether the block is freshly > minted from the RIR or recycled. > > Owen > > > On Nov 20, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Steve, > > > > I think your interpretation of 4.3.2.2 is incorrect. That policy > section was not the one that authorized the receipt of a (PA) /24 for > multihoming. That was, and still is, 4.2.3.6 <http://4.2.3.6/>: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236 < > https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236>, which states that "The > ISP will then verify the customer's multihoming requirement and may assign > the customer a /24, based on this policy." > > > > 4.3.2.2 states that the minimum allocation size (from ARIN) for > multihomed end users was a /24. However, that did not allow you to get a > /24 from ARIN just by becoming multihomed. If you were/are in that > situation, you always had to (and still have to) get your /24 from your > upstream if you don't meet ARIN's /24 utilizatinon criteria, and > demonstrate efficient utilization before getting one from ARIN. > > > > If my understanding does not match how policy was implemented by staff > prior to implementation of ARIN-2014-13 on 17 September 2014, someone > please correct me, but that was the intent of the policy as I understand it. > > > > When discussing 2014-13, my sense of the community was that we did not > want to authorize receipt of a /24 from ARIN solely based on multihoming, > because that could possibly open up a land rush of organizations spun up > solely for the purpose of getting a /24 from the free pool, holding it for > the requisite time, and then selling it on the transfer market. I > personally would be more amenable to considering a policy change to > liberalize the requirements for getting a /24 if/when they're available > from the transfer market only. > > > > -Scott > > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Steve King <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Multi-homing was not a requirement. It was an alternate > justification. I can?t honestly meet the 50% utilization requirement for a > /24, but under the pre-September rules I qualified for a /24 under 4.3.2.2 > because I contract with multiple carriers and want to participate in BGP > for failover. > > > > > > > > Now that the language in 4.3.2.2 is gone, my reading is I have to either: > > > > > > > > a) Lie about my utilization. Not willing to do that. > > > > b) Beg for a BGP-transferrable block from a carrier, and even then, > deal with the fact that other ISPs are far more likely to aggregate and > filter specific routes to large carrier-assigned blocks. I end up with a > less reliable failover solution. > > > > > > > > The policy revision is a significant step backward for me. Maybe I?m > enough of an edge case to not matter. But ARIN-2014-13 stated 4.3.2.2 was > redundant given the lowered minimum allocation in 4.3.2.1. It was not > redundant. It covered a case that I think matters. > > > > > > > > The worst part is, I?m probably going to end up with two non-BGP > transferrable /24s from two carriers (we all know they hand them out like > candy with big circuits), so I?ll end up burning more IPV4 space than I > otherwise would. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve King > > > > ICON Aircraft > > > > > > > > From: John Von Stein [mailto:[email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]>] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:18 PM > > To: Richard J. Letts; Steve King; [email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]> > > Subject: RE: Multi-homing justification removed? > > > > > > > > Speaking from recent / current experience, the multi-homing requirement > is a bit of a challenge for tweener-sized organizations like QxC. We are > too big for underlying fiber carriers to comfortably continue to supply our > need for IP addresses but not in the position to carry the financial, > technical or operational challenges of multi-homing. This was a very > significant cost commitment for QxC and I can imagine this is not > achievable for other like-sized ISPs. Granted, we are better off for it > now but had I known how much of a financial and technical hurdle this > really was then I probably would not have done it. I just needed more IP > addresses to continue to grow my biz and would have much rather spent the > money and manpower on marketing/sales/customer acquisition. Multi-homing > is a nice-to-have luxury that none of my customers are willing to pay for > so it is simply a cost of entry to get the IP addresses we need to continue > to grow our customer base. > > > > > > > > As such, I support dropping multi-homing as a prerequisite for an IP > allocation. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > John W. Von Stein > > > > CEO > > > > > > > > <image001.jpg> > > > > > > > > 102 NE 2nd Street > > > > Suite 136 > > > > Boca Raton, FL 33432 > > > > Office: 561-288-6989 <tel:561-288-6989> > > www.QxCcommunications.com <http://www.qxccommunications.com/> > > > > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are > addressed. > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > On Behalf Of Richard J. Letts > > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:24 PM > > To: Steve King; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed? > > > > > > > > I believe the intent was there. > > > > > > > > orgs that have a justifiable/provable need for a /24 were been > restricted by their current/lone provider being unwilling to give them > enough address space. Not everyone has the ability to change providers, and > if you can?t change providers then you certainly would not be able to > multihome.. > > > > > > > > Richard Letts > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > On Behalf Of Steve King > > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:47 AM > > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed? > > > > > > > > The changes implemented in ARIN-2014-13, specifically the removal of > 4.3.2.2, appear to have removed the multi-homing justification for a /24 > for end users. Previously, the need to multi-home, and proof of contracts > with multiple upstream providers, was sufficient to justify a /24 to > participate in BGP. > > > > > > > > For reassignments from ISPs, the language remains in 4.2.3.6. Users can > justify a /24 via a requirement to multi-home rather than utilization > rate. However this revision appears to leave utilization rate as the only > criterion for direct end-user assignments. > > > > > > > > Was this the intent or possibly an overlooked side effect of the change? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve King > > > > ICON Aircraft > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141201/28186cf1/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 114, Issue 1 > ***************************************** >
_______________________________________________ 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.
