[ppml] Policy Proposal: Decreasing Exponential Rationing of IPv4 IP Addresses

[Dean Anderson]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> The main reason is because its premise is flawed: the policy supposes  
> that making sure we don't run out of IPv4 address space the next 10  
> years is better than the situation where we do run out. 

I find it curious that people think that the effect of rationing (a 
temporary stop) is somehow worse than a permanent stop.

> However, addresses that sit in the ARIN warehouse unused don't do the
> community any good, while more stringent rules are harmful, because
> they make new deployments harder, take longer, and increase risks.

So you think we shouldn't turn down any request ever?  All requests 
should be fullfilled under that notion. Obviously, we are already 
turning down requests.

> Also, the policy doesn't describe a workable practice for the ARIN  
> staff. What if 8 requests come in, 4 for 1 million addresses and 4  
> for 250000, and the current rationing is for 4 million? Do 4 people  
> get their million and the 4 others get nothing? Or 7 get everything  
> and one gets nothing? Or they all get 80%? In that case, the people  
> who need 250000 will obviously ask for 400000 so they get 285000 but  
> the big ones only get 700000. Or do the small ones get everything  
> they ask for and the big ones only 75%?

This happens whether rationing occurs or not, because exactly the same
thing happens when there are only 4 million addresses left.

There is no change by rationing. We just repeat the same process with
temporary stops.  Under the current policy, the first to get their
paperwork in order will be served.

> If you only get a percentage of the address space you need, this is  
> nearly as harmful as not getting anything at all. 

But __Less__ harmful.


> And the benefits of gaming the system increase astronomically, so
> "address request fraud"  will become much more common.

But this happens anyway, rationing or not rationing. Hoarding isn't
caused by rationing, its caused by resource exhaustion.  However,
rationing helps fight hoarding because they have to come back and show
actual usage.

> As I said, rationing IPv4 addresses is a bad idea. But if the  
> community wants to do it, there are better ways.

Without an alternative proposal, its pretty hard to suppose there are
better ways.

		--Dean

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