[ppml] New ARIN Sub-region Policy Proposal (Rural-America)

[Owen DeLong]

>> This is an example of determining how many people will accept a
>> double-standard when there ought not be.
>
>> John's analogy is excellent.
>
> ARIN has always had policies that apply
> to only a subset of the organizations in the
> ARIN region. For instance, some policies
> are directed at ISPs and others at end users.
> Some are directed at small ISPs just beginning
> to multihome, others to larger ISPs that
> are expanding their use of IP addresses and
> yet others to organizations who are
> beginning to use IPv6.
>
These are groupings based on technical requirements.  It has been well
established that the TECHNICAL requirements for /22 prefix allocations
are similar between small(er) organizations in North America and those
in sub-equitorial Africa.  ARIN does not currently have any policies
which subdivide it's actions based on any geographical, economic, or
other arbitrary and non-technical boundaries.

> When ARIN first shifted the minimum allocation
> size, it was to make it easier for the large
> number of smaller independent ISPs to get
> a portable block of addresses to enable them to
> multihome. That policy was targetted at a specific
> subset of ISPs and had no impact whatsoever on
> the larger ISPs of the day like UUNET.
>
But, the policy applies to ANYONE in ARIN who wishes to apply under the
policy.

> There is a good argument to be made for
> making it easier for low population areas
> to get portable address space, but this is
> not the time or the place. I'd really like
> to see this sort of thing discussed at the
> policy BOF before it gets to the proposal
> stage.
>
I'm sure you would.  However, this is ARIN, not DILLON.  The fact that you
don't want to talk about it at this meeting doesn't mean the rest of the
community wants to sit back and watch prior proposals that had at least
some support evaporate and be told to start over.  It especially doesn't
mean that we want to simultaneously grant the requested capability to
a subset of the intended constituency while excluding the original
requesting portion of the constituency.  While I think John is serious
about the need to get micro-allocations for rural american ISPs, I don't
think he would feel the need to push his policy proposal if there were
not already a discriminatory proposal on the table.  If we can pass 2002-3
with inclusion of allocations, all this becomes moot.  Everyone gets what
they need, and, other than possibly a subset of large(r) providers in North
America, everyone can claim victory.  Then, John's proposal becomes
unnecessary, 2003-15 becomes unnecessary, and, we can avoid the resulting
mess that gets created as each struggling consumer of IP space attempts to
find a small enough subset to specially classify themselves into that they
can get a special policy for what they need.




Owen