[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 93: Predicable IPv4 Run Out by Prefix Size - Revised

[Martin Hannigan]

Not in favor. Any change from first and first out based on the current
minimum allocation unit is a mid game change which is patently unfair.
Automatically changing the allocation size is quite different than
requiring a policy proposal _based on current conditions_.
Circumstances may chance the popularity of such a proposal. One could
argue that it too could be changed. Why not simply change the
allocation unit from meet to meet?>

Best,

Martin

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Member Services<info at arin.net> wrote:
> Policy Proposal 93
> Predicable IPv4 Run Out by Prefix Size
>
> The proposal originator submitted a revised version of the proposal.
>
> The AC will review this proposal at their next regularly scheduled
> meeting and decide how to utilize the proposal. Their decision will be
> announced to the PPML.
>
> In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on this proposal on
> the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
> behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
> vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> http://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Mailing list subscription information can be found at:
> http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/
>
> Regards,
>
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> #####
>
>
> 1. Policy Proposal Name: Predicable IPv4 Run Out by Prefix Size
>
> 2. Proposal Originator:  David Farmer
>
> 3. Proposal Version: 1.1
>
> 4. Date: 18 June 2009
>
> 5. Proposal type: new
>
> 6. Policy term: permanent
>
> 7. Policy statement:
>
> Create a new subsection in section 4 of the NRPM;
>
> 4.X Maximum Allocation or Assignment during and following
> Run-Out
>
> When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA implementing section
> 10.4.2.2, a proportionally decreasing maximum allocation, and
> assignment, size will be put into effect.  The maximum
> allocation will be the next whole CIDR prefix less than or equal
> to one quarter (1/4) of the total ARIN free pool available at the
> time of each allocation, but no longer than the applicable
> minimum allocation.
>
> An OrgID may request additional resources when it can
> demonstrate it has properly utilized all previous allocations per
> applicable policies.  However, the total of all allocations
> received within the last three (3) month period and the current
> request, cannot exceed the current maximum allocation size.
>
> This maximum allocation size is applicable to allocations from
> the ARIN free pool only, and is explicitly not applicable to
> resources received through Transfers to Specified Recipients
> per section 8.3, or any other specially designated resources.
>
> 8. Rationale:
>
> This proposal is intended to ensure an equitable distribution of
> the remaining ARIN free pool resources once additional
> resources are no longer abundantly available from IANA.
> Equity is achieved by ensuring the available resources are
> spread among multiple organizations and that no single
> organization may monopolize all of the resources available
> through a single request, at least until the maximum allocation
> size has been reduced down to the minimum allocation size.
>
> Reducing the maximum allocation size in proportion to the
> amount of resources available should minimize, or possibly
> eliminate, the need to fulfill requests with multiple smaller
> blocks.
>
> The maximum allocation size is intended to apply to both ISP
> allocations and End-user assignments.
>
> The current maximum allocation size should be publish in real-
> time on the ARIN website, as it may change rapidly as the
> ARIN free pool resources are exhausted.
>
> Following the run-out phase, this proposal provides an
> equitable means of distribution of resources if or when
> additional resources become available after ARIN has initially
> exhausted such resources.  Such as if resources are returned,
> recovered by other means, or additional resources are
> obtained from IANA.  Further, whenever ARIN receives a
> sufficiently large amount of resources, this policy intends for
> the maximum allocation size to be increased accordingly.
>
> The intent of the second paragraph is to normally limit an
> organization to a single maximum allocation within a three
> month period.  However, saying it that simply opens the policy
> to gamesmanship in requesting less than a maximum
> allocation.  Requiring a maximum allocation to cover new
> requests and all allocations received in the previous three
> month period, should eliminate this kind of gamesmanship.
>
> There is a beneficial side effect of the second paragraph as
> stated, in the special situation when the maximum allocation
> size is increased, due to ARIN obtaining a sufficiently large
> amount of additional resources, an organization may receive
> additional resources earlier than the normal three month
> period.  But, only in this special situation and when an
> organization properly utilizes a previous maximum allocation in
> less than three months, may an organization receive additional
> resources in less than the normal three month period.
>
> Other ratios, such as one half (1/2) or one eighth (1/8) could be
> considered.  One eighth (1/8) would provide greater assurance
> of eliminating the need to use multiple blocks to fulfill requests
> and ensure a greater number of organizations receive
> resources.  However, one eighth (1/8) is more likely to be seen
> as rationing and an attempt to artificially extend the lifetime of
> IPv4.  During the ARIN XXIII policy discussion there seemed to
> be a consensus that attempts to extend the lifetime of IPv4
> resources would be undesirable.  While on the other hand, one
> half (1/2) is even less likely to ration resources, it would likely
> result in the resource being spread across significantly fewer
> organizations and increase the need to use multiple blocks to
> fulfill requests.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>