[ppml] Policy to help the little guys

[Tom Vest]

On Mar 19, 2008, at 1:31 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>
>> arin is not directly not concerned with the end customer.  we are  
>> mostly
>> self-serving medium and large isps because that is who can afford  
>> and is
>> motivated to keep sending people to these meetings and reading drivel
>> such as this message.  it's not an evil plot, it's economics.  who  
>> can
>> afford the time and energy?  to whom is it worth the cost?
>
> So let's discuss some policies to help the end consumer.  I, for one,
> spend my time and energy reading and writing this drivel because I  
> have
> an overactive sense of altruism, or something, and enjoy it.  My
> employer doesn't particularly care if I do or don't.
>
> One policy proposal that might help consumers is 2008-3, Community
> Networks IPv6 Allocation.  I think I support that proposal, since  
> in my
> own work on mesh networks I can definitely see the need for PI  
> space at
> the community network layer.  Does anyone else have any thoughts on
> whether adding a community networks criterion to get a PI /48 is a  
> good
> idea?
>
> What about shifting the minimum allocation size?  Should we reopen  
> that
> discussion and consider /24 or /23 instead of /22?
>
> I'm not sure what else the "little guys" need as far as policy.  Does
> anyone else have any other suggestions?
>
> -Scott

Question for ARIN stats folks:

Historically -- say over the last 5-6 years -- what share of all  
subsequent allocations involves prefixes equal to or longer than the  
average or max. prefix length for all (concurrent policy era) initial  
allocations? That could help to suggest the degree to which new  
entrants and incumbents will be competing for the same IPv4 resources  
in a post-free pool environment, even if "convex pricing" emerges in  
any market for such resources.

Depending on the answer to that  question, I might have a few  
suggestions.

Thanks,

TV