[ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

[Dean Anderson]

Yes. Expanding the timeframe affirmatively enables hoarding.  A longer
timeframe increases the amount of addresses that can be requested, and
extends the time to report on utilization.  Anyone can lie for the
timeframe. (or plans for usage just not work out). The longer the
timeframe, the easier it is to lie, or just be "more wrong".

If we are concerned about hoarding and the accuracy of planned usage,
the timeframe should be reduced.

	--Dean

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> Dan,
> 
> I agree that massive hoarding requires exaggeration of stated need.  
> However, what I'm worried about with lengthening the timeframe is that 
> some organizations will request a year's worth of IP space as soon as 
> they qualify for more, accelerating the transfer of unused addresses 
> from RIRs to recipients and resulting in a greater time disparity of 
> IPv4 free space exhaustion between ISPs, based not on how much 
> efficiency and reclamation they performed, but on when they applied for 
> their addresses.
> 
> As we approach IPv4 free pool exhaustion, I think it makes sense to give 
> orgs only enough IPv4 space to meet their immediate needs, ensuring a 
> more level playing field between orgs.
> 
> In any event, I don't think the difference between 6 months and a year 
> is all that great, but I worry about accepting a policy proposal that 
> moves us in the wrong direction, however slightly.
> 
> -Scott
> 
> Alexander, Daniel wrote:
> > Scott,
> >  
> > I think of hoarding occurring in two ways. One would be where an 
> > organization, inadvertently or not, requests more address space than 
> > they actually use in the six months or a year. The other case is where 
> > the org would falsify or exaggerate an application to get more than 
> > they need.
> >  
> > For the second one to happen, we would have to assume that ARIN does 
> > not perform due diligence during the review of an application. Since I 
> > go through this process several times a year, I can say with 
> > confidence, that is not the case. Also, if an organization is 
> > submitting fraudulent applications, that ARIN is not catching, it 
> > wouldn't matter what the timeframe is, since they would just keep 
> > coming back for more.
> >  
> > There are several ways to throttle this problem. One is what's 
> > currently in place. The one year allowance is for established 
> > organizations who have documented growth. If the organization doesn't 
> > have established growth trends, then ARIN would not approve the 
> > application for the full amount of what is requested. This has also 
> > happened to me on several occasions. :)   If for some reason, an org 
> > is allocated too much space, this would only be a one-time-shot. If an 
> > org didn't grow at the rate it originally anticipated, it wouldn't be 
> > able to make another application until the current space is used.
> >  
> > There are also a number of discussions and proposals around ARIN being 
> > able to audit and or reclaim space that is not being used properly. 
> > It's just my opinion, but these are better means to control hoarding, 
> > rather than restricting allocations to legitimate applications of need.
> >  
> > I will concede I might be missing something though. If you can think 
> > of ways this proposal could be abused, I would appreciate the input. I 
> > like your suggestion that maybe they should all be six months. I 
> > just figured it would be easier to bring one Registry in line with the 
> > policy of the other four, rather than bring the other four in line 
> > with the one.
> >  
> > Thanks,
> > Dan
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Scott Leibrand
> > *Sent:* Tue 8/14/2007 6:25 PM
> > *To:* davids at webmaster.com
> > *Cc:* ppml at arin.net
> > *Subject:* Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional 
> > Requests
> >
> > David Schwartz wrote:
> > >> Dan,
> > >>
> > >> I think this would've been a good change to make a few years ago, when
> > >> we were further away from IPv4 exhaustion.  However, I think this
> > >> proposal moves us in the wrong direction with regards to avoiding
> > >> hoarding as IPv4 free pool exhaustion nears.
> > >>
> > >> -Scott
> > >>    
> > >
> > > That was precisely my initial reaction to the proposal. Then I read 
> > this:
> > >
> > >  
> > >>> Currently, all RIR's provide organizations with at least a 12 month
> > >>> supply of IPv4 address space when making subsequent requests, with the
> > >>> exception of the ARIN region. The primary reason for this change 
> > is for
> > >>> continuity among all RIR. In doing so, all established organizations
> > >>> have a more consistent access to IP resources.
> > >>>      
> > >
> > > I think a level playing field is a good thing. But I do agree that 
> > it may
> > > send the wrong message.
> > >  
> >
> > Perhaps policy proposals to change 1-year-supply clauses to
> > 6-month-supply ones would be another way to level the playing field,
> > while moving us in the direction we need to go to deal with IPv4 free
> > pool exhaustion...
> >
> > -Scott
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
> > Public Policy
> > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN 
> > Member Services
> > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
> > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >   
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000