[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Last Minute Assistance for Small ISPs

[David Farmer]

On 27 Jul 2009 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> David Farmer wrote:
>
...

> I was intending the last /8 of IANA-assigned.

That was my impression, but I wasn't 100% sure.

> > Maybe a better way is to provide specific CIDR-based threshold triggers 
> > rather than percentages anyway.  Maybe say the last /11 instead of 90% 
> > (87.5% of a /8), /12 instead of 95% (93.75% of a /8), and /13 instead of 97% 
> > (96.875% of a /8). This way you probablly don't need to explicitly say start 
> > with the last /8.
> > 
> 
> Yes, this probably is a much better way to do it.  Question for you, 
> what do you think of the curve?  Do you think the percentages, or
> CIDR-equivalents of the last /8 are good?

I think they are OK, there is always a little arbitrariness to these 
things.

....

> > 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.

Actually I've been trying very hard not to limit or preserve IPv4 
at all.  I'm mostly tring to make it so most groups run out about 
the same time, within 3 months or so and try to make sure that 
the last bits of address space get spread out among multiple 
groups.  

I agree with not wanting to do anything to really preserve IPv4, 
but some really nasty things can happen in the Internet market 
place if we don't think about how we Run-Out of IPv4. 

I don't want to or even think we can prevent Run-Out, but I do 
want some order to the Run-Out.

Since you brought up Soft-Landing, I'll use an airplane 
analogy, we are going to crash, not a hard landing, a real 
honest to goodness crash.  But, do we want to auger in, or try 
for a belly landing on the water.  Will we be United 93 on 9/11 
in Pennsylvania  or USAir 1549 last January on the Hudson 
River in New York?

So we are going to crash I just want it to be one that most of us 
will walk a way from.

> 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.

I agree, I just want to bring a little order to the event.

>  > 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'm not sure it is incompatable with the other two proposals or 
even my goals for them.  I was just try to get your view.

> But this depends on how you view IPv4 runout.  I view IPv4 runout
> as a fundamental fact, no amount of wriggling on the hook is
> going to get the worm off, it's gonna happen no matter how much
> IPv4 we dig out of the archives.
> 
> Others who may view IPv4 runout as something that we actually have
> control over, and can manipulate, would probably feel that a
> proposal like mine undercuts the entire IPv4 addressing scheme.
> 
> If people who are actively opposing those proposals want to use
> this proposal as a hill to rally behind, I don't care one way or
> the other.  It wasn't intended as such, however.
> 
> Where I'm coming from is simple - we all know that there's small
> fry out there, we all know that some of those small fry are gonna
> get stomped hard by IPv4 runout, and since the small fry definitely
> didn't cause IPv4 runout, I just felt it was kind of unfair to allow
> that to happen without throwing them a lifeline.  After all it's
> not like it would really be a lot of skin off our collective nose
> to do this for them for a few years, and it would mean a great
> deal of difference to many of them.

I think your general idea is a good one, it just need work on the 
details.  It is dealing with the one of the parameters I didn't 
touch, minimum allocation size.  But in my "Predictable IPv4 
Run Out by Allocation Window" proposal, I did allow for the 
idea we might change the minimum allocation size.  And I think 
it might be a good idea, but probablly not until the last /8 is 
received.
 
> Ted



===============================================
David Farmer                                      Email:farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota		       Phone: 612-626-0815
2218 University Ave SE		       Cell: 612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029	       FAX: 612-626-1818
===============================================