[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-6 - Abandoned

[william(at)elan.net]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, 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.

Good that you're not abandoning the effort. And just FYI - it took 2
(or was it 3?) years and several abandoned policy proposals before 
original micro-allocation policy proposal was passed.

> Some
> of these are orthogonal issues, which should make it fun.
>
> * This will cause a run on space.

Which will happen anyway. The amount of space for micro-allocations
is actually comparatively very small considering amounts of space
overall consumed by other entities. In fact the amount of space used
by most isps who have < /19 (which is 80% of ARIN members) is about
< 20% of the space actually allocated by ARIN overall [I did exact
study few years ago, don't have exact numbers handy though; I plan
to redo it based on current data end of 2007 again].

> * This will lead to an increase in spammers (and other fradulent users)
> 	applying for space.

It certainly will. Unfortunately these people have no issue with
providing bad documentation and do it with others as well when
they need space including for /22s. But good thing is that number
of these players is actually somewhat limited and in the end
ARIN will probably learn who they all are.

> * 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.)

This point equally applies to those applying for micro-allocation now.

> * Any of the above may cause routing table bloat.

Important point to note that it should be requirement for entity to
have and utilize micro-allocation with their ASN. This reduces amount
of bloat - basically you have the same routing slot for PI space that
you'd already see for PA advertised through separate ASN.

> * This didn't address reducing the minimum for PA space.

This point I don't get.

> * This didn't go far enough.

how far should it have gone???

> * This will lead to an increase in applications and staff load.

ARIN does not seem to have any financial issues at the moment
(its way in black) in fact additional money recovered from this
would likely more then offset any potential cost to hire additional
staff too.

> I think that's the primary troubles I heard.  Please chime in if you
> were there and thought there was something more.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -David
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml