[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 27, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> The concern is not about the speed of free pool depletion (at least from my
> perspective). Afterall, we're talking about transfers -- addresses which by
> definition are already not part of the free pool.
> 
> However, the goal of ARIN policy is also not to optimize for your particular
> business model. The goal of ARIN policy is to see that addresses are held
> by those that have justified need.
> 
> I would agree that this is the goal we're trying to optimize for.
> 
> A 60 month justified need for a resource as constrained as IPv4 is simply
> will not further that policy goal and will, in fact, be contrary to it.
> 
> I agree that with a 60 month justified need threshold we do have a risk of organizations will acquire more space than they have immediate need for, and that the addresses will not be in use for some time after they're transferred.  However, there is another case we need to be sure not to ignore.  If organizations holding (and not using) legacy space are disinclined to transfer it due to ARIN's restrictions, then those addresses will not be in use (or held by those that have justified need) either.
> 
> I'm not sure that 60 months is the right threshold at this time, but I do think we need to figure out how to balance the incentive for address holders to release space to those with justified need against the possibility that organizations will acquire more addresses than they have immediate need for.
> 
> -Scott

Let's let 24 months sink in long enough to have real data before we try to push the line significantly farther in what I consider to be the wrong direction.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120627/e1053307/attachment.htm>