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

Matthew Wilder Matthew.Wilder at telus.com
Fri Aug 8 16:26:49 EDT 2008

As the last email here mentions, this is really a matter of spreading out truly the last of the IP Address wealth.  If there is enough for the banker to get his fill and everyone else before the banker comes back again, any change in policy will probably be nothing more than a wasteful exercise in
itself.  If people agree that it is the scenario in question that raises concern (banker getting the last of the gas) then maybe there is a place for a policy given the following condition.

Projections show that a RIR's available pool of addresses is due to exhaust in approximately 12 months or less.

Policy that activates upon this condition:
The RIR begins to satisfy each ISP's 3 month requirement of IP Addresses, as opposed to their 6 or 12 month projections.  

In theory, as long as requests do not irrationally accelerate (which can itself be encouraged) then the last of the IP Addresses won't be entirely consumed by as large allocations.  This policy would result in a somewhat greater level of fragmentation during the final allocations, but delays the
timing of the increased fragmentation from other suggestions.


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 12:00 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml][Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com:[address-policy-wg]newpolicyidea for PA allocations]

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. 


-----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.

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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list