Kevin, For C, no, they wouldn’t need to show 80% utilization of the /18, they need to again show 80% overall when they came back.
Basically it introduces a 6 month sliding window allowing a total of up to a /16 transferred under this policy during any preceding 6 months. However, there are other flaws with your scenario. As I understand the proposal, you’re able to transfer up to your current size (max /16), so if they hold a /19, they can only transfer another /19 bringing their total holdings to /18 equivalent. Let’s call that T+0 months. At T+2 months, they’ve again achieved 80% utilization overall and come back for a /18. They now hold a /17 equivalent total. At T+4 months, they apply again and are able to transfer another /17 bringing their total holdings to /16. Growth accelerates and now they come back at T+5 months. They can’t transfer another /16 because within the preceding 6 months, they’ve already transferred a /17+/18/+19. All they would be able to transfer at T+5 months would be a /19 because that would complete a /16 worth of transfers in the preceding 6 months. A month later, they could (potentially) transfer another /19 and 2 months later, they could potentially transfer another /18. Owen > On Feb 10, 2017, at 09:56 , Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> wrote: > > Kevin, > > I think that is correct, although I'm not sure they'd have to show 80% of the > new /18, just meet the overall usage threshold. Depends on the exact language > we use, of course. > > What's your preference between A, C, and D? > > -Scott > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Kevin Blumberg <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Jason, <> > > > In regards to A that would be the presumed assumption of the existing text > correct? > > > > I’m not comfortable with B. > > > > In regards to C the intent would be to allow someone who has a /19 to get a > /18 and then as an example three months later come back for a /17 once they > have shown 80 percent of the /18? > > > > There is another option. > > > > D) you can use this policy once every 3 months > > > > Thanks, > > Kevin Blumberg > > > > > > > > > > From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Jason Schiller > Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 2:54 PM > To: Scott Leibrand <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited - anti-abuse clause > > > > We have a few options on the table and only a few voices in the discussion... > > > > I'd like to quickly outline the options, and see if we can get more people to > weigh in and either note they object to one or more options, are ambivalent > to one or more options, or support one or more options (with some preference). > > > > > > 1. demonstrate 80% utilization on average for all your IP space > > 2. get pre-authorization for 1 or more transfers up to double your current > holdings over then two years > > 2.1. this is limited to a /16 > > > > A. you can use this policy once every 6 months > > > > B. If you need to use this policy more than once every 6 months you need to > also demonstrate growth equalling half what you have transferred since you > last used this policy. > > > > C. you can use this policy to transfer a total of up to a /16 > > > > Where do you stand on A, B or C? > > > > __Jason > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > That would be a significant improvement on the current ("An organization may > only qualify under 8.5.7 once every 6 months.") text. I would be equally > fine with this text ("No more than a total of a /16 equivalent may be > transferred under these provisions within any 6 month period." or similar) or > with Jason's ("An organization may only qualify under 8.5.7 once every 6 > months, unless they can also demonstrate growth of IPv4 utilization of at > least half of the amount of specified transfers since the previous transfer > pre-authorization or approval.") > > > > Thanks, > > Scott > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Simple to resolve for the 6-month horizon — > > … Such that no more than a total of a /16 equivalent may be transferred under > these provisions within any 6 month period. … > > Owen > > > > On Feb 3, 2017, at 07:19 , David R Huberman <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > I thought of a possible problem with the anti-abuse language -- all > > versions of it. Let me talk it out. > > > > An organization has a /19. > > It has growing products, and wants another /19 for its 1 or 2 year need. > > It wants to avail itself of the new language. > > It is able to buy a /20 from Buyer A, and a /20 from Buyer B. > > > > It closes the deal with Buyer A first, and transfers at ARIN using the > > proposed language. > > > > How does it use any version we've discussed (Jason's various proposals, the > > current text, etc) to transfer the space it buys from Buyer B? > > > > > > (In all discussion, yes, you can always use the other sections of 8.5, but > > let's stick to the spirit of this policy language, which is meant to help > > smaller and mid-size networks double their holdings without needs testing.) > > _______________________________________________ > > 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] > <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] > <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. > > > > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________________ > > Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>|571-266-0006 <tel:(571)%20266-0006> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
