[ppml] Legacy users and ARIN duties

[Dean Anderson]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, James Hess wrote:

> On 7/30/07, Dean Anderson <dean at av8.com> wrote:
> 
> > Looks like the ARIN board didn't get its facts straight in May.  There
> > should be smart people on the board, who understand rationing.
> > [...]
> >
> >  "WHEREAS, ongoing community access to Internet Protocol version 4
> >   (IPv4) numbering resources can not be assured indefinitely; and,"
> >
> > Through rationing based on a decreasing exponential, the IPv4 addresses
> > can be assured indefinitely, certainly beyond the next 10+ years.  The
> > pain of depletion, instead of being felt all at once, could be spread
> > out over a long period.
> 
> The moment anyone requesting an allocation cannot get the IP addresses
> they need from ARIN, that they meet the justification criteria for, depletion
> has impacted them, and it's every bit as severe as if ARIN had run out of
> ip addresses altogether.

Nonsense. ARIN, I suspect, turns down requests now.

> It would be even more severe if the number of requests explodes as a
> result of ARIN not properly allocating the number of addresses needed.

The number of insufficiently justified requests is of no consequence to
anything.

> Not giving people the addresses they need doesn't really delay
> depletion, it accelerates it.

Strange logic, I think.  So, you'd continue giving a heroin addict a 
full dose of heroin, because they think they "need it"?  Of course, 
stopping cold turkey might kill them, too.

Rationing just spreads the pain over time.  It doesn't accelerate 
the depletion of address space.  Rationing prevents and restrains 
hoarding and selfish behavior.  

Hoarding and Selfish behavior happens no matter what, and is caused when 
people realize the resource is going to run out.  What you and Michael 
Dillon are proposing is to get the message to start hoarding out before 
rationing can begin.  That seems to be contrary to the community 
interests.

> The policy _already_ is to ration IP addresses, they are not allocated
> freely in as much quantity as anyone asks, addresses are already
> allocated based on justified need, and not in excess amounts.

I suppose that's true. My proposal for rationing just causes the
justification requirements to be more stringent. Justification has
continued to get harder over the years.

> The rate at which people come to need additional IP addresses is not
> something ARIN has control over, and yet it's ARIN's responsibility to
> efficiently allocate the addresses needed.

Yes, indeed: "Efficiently allocate the addresses needed".  Rationing
considers future needs against present needs, and avoids abrupt changes.

		--Dean



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