[arin-ppml] [Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com:[address-policy-wg]newpolicy idea for PA allocations]

[Kevin Kargel]

Yeah, but let's say you are the local small town gas station..  You are
running close to empty so your pumps only put out 3 gallons at a time and
you have 60 gallons left.  There is a line of cars at the pump, some boy
scouts who need to make money for camp with their lawn mower are waiting
patiently and washing windows, your mom is at the back of the line.  On top
of all this you remember you didn't fill your suburban this morning..  Do
you let the banker who is at the head of the line buy all 60 gallons for an
exhorbitant fee or do you spread it out around town??

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but you do have choices to
make.. 

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Alexander, Daniel
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 10:20 AM
To: Howard, W. Lee; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml]
[Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com:[address-policy-wg]newpolicy idea for PA
allocations]


Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to dismiss the thought, but was playing
a little devil's advocate myself. Back in May I offered up some thoughts
along a similar line. 

What you say is true, provided the "best fit" allocation made to
organization X provides an adequate window of time for other organizations
to get to the remaining reserves. This would leave little or nothing left by
the time org X comes back, as you mention. 

The problem comes in when you have an org that can justify a /12, and is
only given a /17. This scenario is where you would need a time requirement
restricting future allocations for some number of months.
Without a time restriction, there is nothing to prevent that org from
submitting applications every other day and depleting what's left before
anyone else can get to it. 

-Dan 

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard, W. Lee [mailto:Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:08 PM
To: Alexander, Daniel; ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] [Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com:
[address-policy-wg]newpolicy idea for PA allocations]


> To use the example below, an organization needs a /15, but the only 
> blocks left are 2 /17s, 1 /18, 5 /19s and 2 /20s. If the idea became 
> policy, an organization shows it needs a /15 for the next 12 months.
> ARIN would allocate the /17. That would accommodate the org for an 
> average of three months. Three months later, all things the same, they

> would apply again for a /15 for the next 12 months. They would get a 
> /17, and so the loop continues. 12 months later, they would have a 
> /15, but through submitting ten applications instead of one.

I don't know if this potential proposal is a good idea or not, but isn't
the point of it that by the time the org uses half of their
qualification (three months later), ARIN would be completely out?

Org qualifies for /15 but gets /17.  During that three months, the other
/17, /18, and many of the /19s are assigned to others.
Org qualifies for a /15 or /16 but gets a /19.  Maybe a month later they
can get a /22, but by that point IPv4 is gone.  The goal (I think) would
be to distribute the last assignments among more organizations, so that
one well-timed mammoth application does deplete the remaining pool,
meaning Mammoth ISP is the only one who growsv4 that year/ever again.
 
Mostly playing devil's advocate.

Lee
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3107 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080808/cc522e15/attachment.bin>