[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Equitable Distribution of IPv4 Resources before IPv4 Run out

[Steve Bertrand]

Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
> Hello Scott:
> 
> I'm working on a basis assumption that Extra Large organizations request more addresses more frequently than any of the other groups.  So, if allocations proceed organically with the last IANA allocation, there is a high likelihood that all of the last allocation will go to the Extra Large organizations alone.  So, in an effort to help smaller providers "at the end" we should reserve some space for them so that they can get space, even though they request that space less frequently.  
> 
> If I understand the existing distribution methodology correctly, if there were only a single /20 available at the end, an Extra Large organization could still be allocated that space, even though they had requested a /16.  With my proposal, that last /20 would only be available to either a Small or Extra Small Organization depending on how much of the percentage for that group had been allocated already.

 From how I perceive the language in this proposal, it would mean 
completely changing or outright over/under stepping the current NRPM.

What I mean is, 'well, you qualify 100% with ARIN's number policy, but 
due to this side size limitation, we have to deny your request'.

I believe that this is in complete contrast to the nature of existing 
policies.

The effect I see coming of this would be an exponential requirement for 
policing near the end due to many loopholes that could be found. For 
instance, an extra-large organization could quickly roll off numerous 
very small side shell corporations and fit in nicely with the org size 
required to take what they want.

> I used the existing distribution because it seemed a defensible position because it follows historical allocation patterns instead of using some arbitrary assignment of percentages like 75% for Extra Large, 10% for Large, etc.

The thought is there, but the extra effort to govern it is not worth it. 
  History is sometimes a fine path to look at for future events, but in 
this case, I don't think past trends will be the same going forward.

I personally think we will have a drop off of requests of IPv4 address 
space from micro and small orgs due to rapid deployment of IPv6, and the 
larger orgs who will have a harder time with IPv6 (due to no immediate 
requirements to budget it due to having to answer to shareholders and/or 
lack of interest) will take what they want anyway, any way they can 
(policy or no policy).

Besides, the comment about 'defensible' doesn't stand when you are a /21 
holder, and you are trying to compete with a multiple /8 organization 
for additional space. They will get around you...somehow.

If a policy like this was to be considered, then I would prefer a policy 
that when it comes down to it, the community gets to vote on who gets 
what, but thats another story.

Steve