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

[David Farmer]

On 28 Jul 2009 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> Chris Grundemann wrote:

....

> > 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."

I'm really only intending to ensure that we don't increase the rate by give it all 
to one or a small number of groups in big chunks.   I want to make sure it is 
spread around, giving it out in even smaller chunks to more groups is 
completely compatible with my objectives.  I just want to make sure that it 
goes to as many groups as possible and that no one ends up with a 
competitive advantage for more than a couple months because of IPv4 Run-
Out.  Reducing the minimum allocation actually help with the last part too, 
because a /20 may be a year or two of allocations for some of the small 
guys.

I believe that reducing the allocation window and making sure that no one 
gets more than 25% of what ever ARIN has in a single allocation prevent 
some really nasty possible effects of Run-Out.  I also completely support 
reducing the minimum allocation size at the end too.

As I say at the end of the Rationale for "93. Predicable IPv4 Run Out by 
Prefix Size ";

"Finally, combining the 3 month period with the one quarter
(1/4) ratio provides roughly an annualized equivalent of the
whole ARIN free pool being made available to a single
organization.  While it is not possible for a single organization
to receive the whole ARIN free pool within one year under this
policy, it is a virtual certainty that multiple organization will be
requesting resources, and that the ARIN free pool will not likely
last a full year following the exhaustion of the IANA free pool
anyway.  Therefore, the ratio one quarter (1/4) seems to strike
a balance between making resources available with as little
restriction as possible and ensuring an equitable distribution of
those resources during and following the run-out phase."

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

 
> 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
===============================================