[ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

Alexander, Daniel Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com
Wed Aug 15 13:03:16 EDT 2007


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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070815/2c8655ee/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list