[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Predictable IPv4 Run Out by Allocation Window

[David Farmer]

I believe that the two proposals are complementary and that 
they both should be implemented.

Both proposals are based on need, they simply deal with the 
consequences of the fact that need will exceed supply and we 
will run out.  They each do it in slightly different ways.

Reducing the allocation window, helps interleave the need a bit 
better and I believe is necessary, but it doesn't deal with the 
terminal inequities of how to split up that last little bits. 

Our current policies don't need to deal with how to equitably 
apportion resources.  Its just not an issue because when ARIN 
runs low they simply get more, so there is no questions of 
equity in the current system.  But when the demand outstrips 
supply equity will become a question we need to answer.

An example;  Imagine NYBISP (Name Your Big ISP) justifies a 
/8 pers year, we reduce that to a 3 month allocation window 
they still justify about a /10 per 3 month period, ARIN is down 
to the last /10 should NYBISP get all the address space ARIN 
has?  Are you ready for the political storm if that is what 
happens?  We can't blame NYBISP because they just did what 
we told them to do, they are playing by the rules.

I'm not saying that big ISPs are bad, I'm just saying that if we 
tell the big ISPs it is ok to clean out ARIN of IPv4 addresses in 
a single request they can and will.  And we can't blame them 
when they do.

If you look at the spread sheets linked here, I wouldn't classify 
this as rationing at least not with the one half or one quarter 
ratios, maybe it is rationing at the one eighth or one sixteenth 
ratios.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=r2IDwxI-
feUNacGABcvopnQ

Even if you insist on calling it rationing, I believe it is very 
minimal rationing.  And it is not rationing for rationing sake, the 
limit is in proportion to the amount of resources ARIN has, if 
ARIN has a lot of resource and you can justify a lot of resource 
you can get them, you just can't have everything ARIN has.

On 8 Jun 2009 McTim wrote:

> HI Leo,
> 
> I prefer this method, as it maintains the idea that we allocate
> and assign based on need.
> 
> The "rationing" (IPv4 run out by prefix size) proposal
> fundamentally alters the notion of needs based allocation.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> 
> 
> On 6/8/09, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> > ## * ##
> >
> >
> >    1. Policy Proposal: Predictable IPv4 Run Out by Allocation Window
> >
> >    2. Proposal Originator: Leo Bicknell
> >
> >    3. Proposal Version: 1.0
> >
> >    4. Date: 8 June 2009
> >
> >    5. Proposal type: modify
> >
> >    6. Policy term: permanent
> >
> >    7. Policy statement:
> >
> >       Replace the text in NRPM 4.2.4.4 with:
> >
> >       After an organization has been a subscriber member of ARIN for
> >       one year, they may choose to request up to a 12 month supply
> >       of IP addresses.
> >
> >       Starting on 1 July 2010, a gradual reduction in the allocation
> >       period will be applied as follows:
> >
> >       As of 1 July 2010, they may choose to request up to a 9 month
> >       supply.
> >
> >       As of 1 January 2011, they may choose to request up to a 6
> >       month supply.
> >
> >       As of 1 July 2011, they may choose to request up to a 3 month
> >       supply.
> >
> >    8. Rationale:
> >
> >       During the ARIN XXIII policy discussion several individuals
> >       described ideas similar to RIPE policy proposal 2009-03
> >       (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03.html).
> >       This policy adapts the same idea into an ARIN policy for
> >       discussion in this region.
> >
> >       From the RIPE proposal:
> >
> > ] This is a proposal to gradually reduce the allocation and
> > ] assignment periods in step with the expected life time of the IPv4
> > ] unallocated pool in order to address the perception of unfairness
> > ] once the pool has run out.
> > ]
> > ] The proposal is not intended to stretch the lifetime of the
> > ] unallocated pool.
> > ]
> > ] The proposal is independent of other proposals to reserve address
> > ] space for transition purposes and/or new entrants. It can be
> > ] implemented independently of these.
> >
> >    9. Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.



===============================================
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
===============================================