[arin-ppml] Easy vs Hard (was Re: Policy Proposal: Last Minute Assistance for Small ISPs)

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:23, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
>> David Farmer wrote:
>>> How would you envision this working with other policy proposals?  Such as
>>> 93. Predicable IPv4 Run Out by Prefix Size and 94. Predictable IPv4 Run Out
>>> by Allocation Window.
>> I think both of those proposals will suffer the same fate as
>> 2007-05-02, "IPv4 Soft Landing"
>>
>> Unless my read of the ARIN participatory membership is incorrect,
>> people are generally opposed to trying to keep chewing the
>> gum once all the flavor is gone.
>>
>> There's not a lot of point to making the IPv4 requesting
>> criteria so stringent that practically nobody can get an
>> allocation.  It reminds me of North Korea's 4 authorized "Christian"
>> churches that are attended by nobody, and do nothing, but allow
>> the regime to claim they are tolerant.
>>
>> Sure, if you make criteria for IPv4 so tough that nobody can
>> meet it, you can claim that ARIN hasn't run out of IPv4 yet
>> for the next 3-4 decades.
>>
>>> Would you do this instead of one or both of those
>>>
>>> or would you do this and one or both of those too?
>>>
>> I'm generally opposed to both of those proposals but my gut
>> feel is they will be shot down anyway so I don't really feel
>> "threatened" by them, nor do I really even bother to think
>> about them.  When I came up with
>> this proposal I wasn't viewing it as an "opposition" proposal
>> to those proposals.
>>
>> I can see, though, how someone might consider this to be diametrically
>> opposed to those proposals.  I'm suggesting we make it easier to get IPv4 at
>> the last minute - those proposals are making it harder.
> 
> I disagree that proposals 93 and 94 would make it harder to get IPv4.
> 
> They would allow Orgs to get less IPv4 at once; which I guess could be
> stated as "making it harder for an Org to get large amounts of IPv4"
> or even "harder for an Org to get the desired amount of IPv4" but that
> in turn will make it easier (read: possible) for other Orgs to get
> some IPv4 (vs none).
> 
> Neither of those proposals make the requirements any more strict -
> which is how I would define "making it harder."
> 

I wasn't speaking about "more difficult" on an individual org level, but
rather a community level.  It would have been more accurate to say:

"I'm suggesting we make increase the rate at which IPv4 is allocated at 
the last minute - those proposals are suggesting we decrease the rate at 
which IPv4 is allocated at the last minute."

So as I said I do see how someone could view the 2 proposals as in
opposition to each other.

Ted