[arin-ppml] The Library Book Approach to IPv4 Scarcity

[Jo Rhett]

Too complex, too much hand-holding of ARIN staff.  I'd support a much  
simpler, straightforward audit and recovery of space not used.  And no  
"fees".  Any business would pay the fee and keep the space.  Recovery  
should be the failure action.

On Oct 27, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> This is (yet another) a policy that may help us ease away from IPv4,
> maintain contact between ARIN and it's members and maybe even avoid a
> transfer market.  I have been kicking the general idea around for  
> over six
> months and it has recently matured with input from some very  
> intelligent
> folks.  I do not want to associate them with this particular idea
> unwittingly so I won't name them here but I would like to thank them  
> here
> anonymously - thank you.  It is not an official proposal yet as I  
> fear that
> there won't be much support for it.  If you do think that this is a  
> good
> idea or at least on the right track, please let me know - on or off  
> list.  I
> don't want to bang my head against the wall too long if I am alone.   
> Also,
> if you hate it, think I am crazy or just don't think it will work, I  
> would
> love to hear why.   Although many have influenced it, this is my  
> work and my
> opinion alone and does not represent the views of any organization or
> individuals I may be affiliated with. ((IMHO))
> Thank you,
> ~Chris
>
>
> == Potential Proposal:
>
> Once every 12months each holder of IPv4 addresses is required to fully
> document their IP utilization and demonstrate that the current  
> utilization
> standard for IPv4 assignments and allocations is being met. This shall
> include all currently held IPv4 space, regardless of origin or  
> registration
> status.
>
> A fee shall be assessed for underutilization or insufficient  
> documentation.
>
>    * The fee for one 12m period shall be waived if the address holder
> returns a contiguous block of IPv4 space equal to at least 1/256th of
> currently held space and no less than one /24 (class C equivalent)  
> to ARINs
> free pool.
>    * The fee for one 12m period shall be waived if the address  
> holder signs
> an ARIN RSA for any uncontested and unregistered IPv4 space, this  
> waiver
> shall be restricted to one use per member organization.
>
>
> == Rationale:
>
> IP space (v4, v6, vX) is a public resource and as such should be  
> borrowed,
> used and returned by those with a need for it. Think of IPv4  
> prefixes like
> library books (another finite public resource): When you check out a  
> book,
> you are expected to return it on a certain date. If that date comes  
> and you
> are still actively using the book, you are allowed to state that and  
> keep
> the book. Since we are at a point now where IPv4 space is recognizably
> finite, it makes sense to implement a similar policy at the RIR(s) -  
> that is
> a time frame. This policy would require that after X amount of time,  
> the
> LIR/EU would need to return to the RIR with justification if they  
> wish to
> keep the space. The burden should be on the LIR/EU to prove that  
> they are
> actively using the space.
>
>
> == Some thoughts:
>
> 1) This policy should be part of a comprehensive plan including:
> - A policy to identify abandoned space
> - A policy to reclaim abandoned space
> - A policy to restrict some (if not all) IPv4 space allocations/ 
> assignments
> to new entrants deploying IPv6
> - A continuing increase in utilization requirements
>
> 2) I do worry that some (perhaps many) will try to game the system by
> exaggerating or falsifying 'proof' of efficient utilization. At the  
> same
> time I think that having that caveat will make this much easier for  
> most to
> swallow and hopefully accept than a similar proposal which assessed  
> the fee
> to all holders of IPv4 space regardless of utilization. The idea  
> (hope) is
> that as IPv4 becomes more and more scarce, the community will raise  
> the
> utilization requirements to include things like NAT and IPv6. This  
> would
> provide a constant pressure on all community members to become more
> efficient in their IPv4 use which in turn should help keep some  
> addresses
> free for new entrants. This is the opposite effect of an  
> unrestricted market
> based approach which would encourage large holders of addresses to  
> hold more
> and more IPv4, to store value and bar new competition.
>
> 3) I am not sure what the fee should be or if it should be spelled  
> out in
> policy, this is probably something that ARIN staff should set and be  
> able to
> change when needed. Perhaps the policy should define simply how the  
> fee is
> assessed, ie: per IP or per % underutilized, etc. It may also be  
> helpful or
> necessary to add a statement in the policy requiring any proceeds  
> from these
> fees to be used for something in particular (legacy outreach, IPv6
> promotion, payment/credit to orgs with utilization above the  
> efficiency
> requirement, etc).
>
> 4) I expect that some (possibly many) organizations will find it  
> easier to
> simply return some space than even trouble themselves with trying to  
> justify
> their current holdings. This will be especially true of  
> organizations which
> hold large amounts of space.
>
> 5) I am expecting that bringing resources under an ARIN RSA may be  
> easier
> and less painful for organizations which already hold other RSA  
> covered
> space than a full IP audit or returning space. Under this assumption  
> the
> final sentence has two goals:
> A) To help incent organizations to secure legacy space in any  
> existing or
> inevitable grey/black market early on (and get it over with). If  
> there are
> no back-room deals for exchange of legacy space now or in the  
> future, than
> this is not an issue and can be ignored, this policy will have no  
> affect in
> this area.
> B) To get any transfered legacy IPv4 space (see point A) under an  
> RSA so
> that we are all playing on the same field by the same rules. I think  
> if
> everyone had a more similar role in the game we might work together  
> better.
> I will note however that legacy holders with no RSA covered space  
> have no
> increased incentive to sign an RSA under this proposal then they do  
> today
> (and no increased risk in not signing one).
>
> 6) I originally considered a period of 24 months but shortened it to  
> 12
> months considering the rapid approach of IANA free pool exhaustion; 24
> months will be far to long of an interval to have a significant  
> impact on
> IPv4 availability.
>
>
> -- 
> Chris Grundemann
> www.chrisgrundemann.com
> www.linkedin.com/in/cgrundemann
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-- 
Jo Rhett
senior geek

Silicon Valley Colocation
Support Phone: 408-400-0550