[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-6 - Abandoned

[Azinger, Marla]

I disagree.  I think there are a few very loud (not that this is bad) voices that repeatedly state their support for this proposal.  I also feel that there a allot of people who feel this is in general bad policy no matter how you try to spin the views of how spam, bloat and hording are addressed.  Those people didn't speak up on ppml or much at the mic but they definitely showed their hands in opposition at the meeting.  Thus...no consensus with a slight larger number of hands opposed vs. in support.  In addition there was one point made that there really is a lack of what this is supposed to be solving.  It seems like it is less of a need and more of a wish.

Also, I have been working with one person that was in support of this proposal. After we got talking I discovered that the only reason they supported it was because their upstream isn't supporting them with proper re-allocation paperwork to ARIN WHOIS.  Thus inhibiting them from sending re-assignments to ARIN WHOIS.  So really, this is a problem, but educating their upstream to support them correctly is a better solution than writing policy that has negative consequences.

Yes, I believe this would lead to a run on IPv4 space
Yes, I believe network providers and ISP's can cut off and clean up IP space used by spammers faster than ARIN ( and I think that is important).
Yes, I believe it is MUCH easier to fudge justification for a /24 than a /22 and set yourself up for hording IP addresses and possibly using them on black-market in the future.

So again (sorry) I still don't support the proposal that no consensus was found for or one that like it in the near future.

Cheers!
Marla

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Owen DeLong
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 10:47 AM
To: David Williamson
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-6 - Abandoned



On Apr 27, 2007, at 7:44 AM, David Williamson wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 08:32:13PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> There were a
>> wide range of objections in the meeting.
>
> I'm going to do something mildly dumb and think out loud.  Let's  
> see if
> we can list the major objections, with the goal of identifying them
> so they can be addressed in a possible future policy submission.  Some
> of these are orthogonal issues, which should make it fun.
>
;-)  The below list was pretty comprehensive from my point of view, but,
Please permit me to categorize each of these objections such that I
think they can be summarized:
> A * This will cause a run on space.
>
> A * This will lead to an increase in spammers (and other fradulent  
> users)
> 	applying for space.
>
> A * It's trivial to show two contracts and consume arbitrary IP space,
> 	so people may try to get space under this policy in order to
> 	horde /24s for a future white/grey/black market.  (It could
> 	be a good investment, to be fair.)
>
> B * Any of the above may cause routing table bloat.
>
> C * This didn't address reducing the minimum for PA space.
>
> C * This didn't go far enough.
>
> A * This will lead to an increase in applications and staff load.

A	I think there was pretty good data to show that these objections
	were mostly "FUD" in the presentation.  Indeed, other than the
	comments about the triviality of bullet 3, I don't recall those
	objections being raised in the room after the presentation and
	the general sense I got from most people was that the other
	points were well addressed.

	I believe that the NRPM already provides sufficient authority for
	staff to address bullet 3 (trivial fraud), but, given the BoT Chair's
	statement to the contrary, I have submitted a policy proposal to
	address this issue.  I agree with David that it is orthogonal to
	this policy (why not hoard /22s instead from the same effort?),
	but, I think it can easily be addressed.

B	Since we're talking about multi-homers, absent fraud, these
	guys are consuming a routing-table slot no matter what, so,
	I don't see bloat as being an issue.

C	Objections to a policy on the basis that it's only a partial
	solution are kind of silly.  That argument is being hashed
	out on 2007-1 in last call right now.

So, it is my sense of the room that had we been able to address
the fraud question, the show of hands probably would have gone
quite differently.  Anyway, bottom line now is that the best way
forward is to make yet another new proposal for this.

Owen