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

[Scott Leibrand]

Martin Hannigan wrote:
> 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?>
>   

Just addressing the practical, rather than philosophical, question, I 
think things will be changing fast enough at run-out that a maximum 
allocation unit changed by policy every 6 months will not have a 
beneficial effect.

-Scott

> 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.
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>