[ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Sep 30 11:46:21 EDT 2003

--On Tuesday, September 30, 2003 2:59 PM +0200 Gregory Massel 
<gregm at datapro.co.za> wrote:

>> Based on this advice, I will now advocate that we should pass 2002-3
>> without amendment.  Further, I will advocate amending 2003-15 to
>> encompass all of ARIN and recommend that it be passed at the next public
>> policy meeting with just that modification.  I will vote against any
>> sub-region
> Owen, I find it quite amusing the manner in which you advocated the
> change to  2002-3 and dropping of 2003-15 until you found out there would
> be delays.
No... Not only because of the delay.  Also, frankly, at this point, these
two proposals will not directly effect me.  My actual concern is for people
that are still in positions I have been in.  I have all the IP space I need
for quite some time.  Further, when I need more for my current position,
it will be quite easy to justify another /20 for it.

> Now you're keen to pass 2002-3 in a manner that doesn't match your
> requirements (you want allocations and assignments) and modify and delay
> 2003-15 to achieve what you want out of an amended 2002-3.
1.	Passing 2002-3 will at least make assignments immediately available
	to EVERYONE in ARIN.  Passing 2003-15 will not help EVERYONE in ARIN,
	but will create a subregional exception.  I believe this to be a bad
	precedent.  Even if 2002-3 were not on the table, I would not accept
	2003-15 without amendment.  Even if I lived in South Africa, I would
	still think 2003-15 was a bad idea without amendment.  In my opinion,
	making sub-regional exceptions, especially based on speculation that
	some future body would probably make the same policy, is a bad idea.

2.	If there is significant support for delaying and amending 2002-3,
	I will go with that.  However, given the possibility of getting
	real relief for EVERYONE immediately, I feel it might be attractive
	to get 2002-3 passed as is.

> Ironically, you think that introducing an unmodified 2002-3 won't
> prejudice a  modified 2003-15, yet you claim introducing an unmodified
> 2003-15 would  compromise 2002-3??? Why such inconsistency?
3.	I did not make any claim about introducing 2003-15 other than to
	say I thought it was a good thing that we were seeing more
	participation from Africa.

	As to passing an unmodified 2003-15, I did not say that it would have
	any impact on 2002-3.  I said it would be used as an excuse not
	to pass an ARIN-wide micro-allocation policy.  I still believe that
	if 2003-15 passes, it will be used to do just that.

	It is relatively easy to argue that 2003-15 serves the area where
	large providers don't exist, and, therefore, a micro-allocation
	policy isn't needed elsewhere.  It's not so easy to argue that
	a micro-assignment policy would do the same thing, since as has
	been repeatedly defined, assignments don't really help ISPs the
	way allocations do.  Assignments are really only good for end users.

> Come on, give us a break. You've blatantly displayed to this entire list
> that  you have purely your own interests at heart on this issue and that
> you'll  happily modify whatever proposals are on the table so long as you
> get what  you want with complete disregard to the negative impact that
> might have on  the people who originally made the proposals.
This is patently not true.  As I stated above.  I have all the IP space
I need right now, and, all that I anticipate needing for quite some time.
I recently obtained 3 /20 assignments for the company where I work.
I have plenty of portable swamp space for my house.  NOTHING in any of
these policies is about my own personal interest.  I think there are
several people who can confirm for you that I do not approach public
policy from a self-interest perspective.  It is true that I am passionate
about seeing this problem solved.  I _HAVE_ been in positions where
these policies would have helped greatly.  I still feel strongly that
these policies are needed, but, they are needed for ALL of ARIN.

> Why don't you propose a complete new policy that sets out to achieve what
> you're looking for instead of hacking apart others that were formulated
> with  different intentions in mind?
I was partially involved in some of the early process on 2002-3.  I was
also involved in other policies that were rolled into what is now 2002-3.
I have been advocating a micro-assignment/micro-allocation policy since
I became involved in ARIN processes (about the time ARIN was formed).
Proposing a new policy would not be effective.  It would get voted down
as a close duplicate of the existing proposals, and, I would be told to
propose amendments instead.  As such, I am proposing amendments.

If you look at the history of 2002-3 and it's other predecessors, you will
find that micro-allocations were, indeed, included in at least one of the
policies combined into 2002-3.  The AC chose to drop micro-allocations from
the policy after much debate and a lot of back-and-forth.

> In the mean time, lets judge all the existing proposals on their merits
> instead of tearing them apart to achieve unrelated goals.
Per your request:

2002-3 has merit because it provides some relief to all of ARIN region
and takes care of the micro-assignment requirement for everyone in ARIN.

2003-15 has merit, but, does not merit passage because it provides special
status to a sub-region of ARIN and solves a problem which is global to all
of the ARIN region for only a select sub-set of that region.  2003-15 could
merit passage if it were amended to incorporate all of ARIN and not
disenfranchise the majority of the ARIN region.

I don't think we are in as strong a disagreement as you think.  I am not
opposed to Africans getting the resources they need.  I am not opposed to
African participation in ARIN.  I am not opposed to AfriNIC or the AfriNIC
RIR.  In fact, I fully support doing whatever we can to expidite AfriNIC
getting to the point where they are their own RIR and can make their own

However, I would think that Africans, of all people, would understand my
desire not to create global policy that grants special status to a


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list