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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:14 PM, David Farmer<farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2009 Martin Hannigan wrote:


[ snip ]

>
> I don't want NYBISP (Name Your Big ISP) taking the last /10 ARIN has and
> cleaning out the free pool.  This will create a political @#$$% storm, if that
> happens.


What will create a larger political storm is if we dramatically change
our policy to be lopsided towards one party or another.

If "big ISP" has the need for a /10 why shouldn't they be able to
acquire it after justification?

>If it happens, it will not be NYBISP's fault it will be ours because
> they will only be doing what we are telling them to do.  Big ISP are not evil,
> they are Big and use lots of addresses, if you tell them they should clean out
> ARIN they can, will, and should, because it is what we are telling them they
> should do.

We have policy. That policy is followed by our members. If our members
have a need, they make a request. They request what they need. We
review their requests for allocations against our policy. Analysts
then determine that there is indeed a need. We've implemented checks
and balance and even officer certifications.

How do these ISP's or others expect to clean us out again?

>
> In the example above instead of NYBISP get the last /10, they would get a
> /12 and could come back in 3 month if there is anything left, this maximum
> goes down and down until you get to a /20 and them someone big or small
> get the last /20 then ARIN runs out.

Right, but again we're faced with one requester[1] fulfilling 100% of
their need and another fulfilling 1%. This is a situation very much
like the one with the recent global policy trying to return space to
the IANA from within the region[2].

>
> I was trying to find a way make the end-game work without rationing, that is
> what people seemed to want comming out of San Antonio.
>
> If you don't like this way what do you suggest?
>

I suggest that we instead change the minimum allocation unit as we
always have on a meeting to meeting basis and avoid creating a
specific policy with automatic triggers.

So, in order to [attempt to] avoid another five hundred post thread,
let me summarize:

1. Not in favor
2. Unfair to change mid-game
3. Creates an unfair condition where some get satisfied and others don't.
4. Could create an unfair advantage for competitors[3]
5. Invites BoT emergency power action since it has automatic triggers
that could fail on [unknown] existing conditions at any time.

I'd rather see the BoT invoke their emergency powers for something
that we "missed", not created.


Best,

Martin

1. Not all requests are from service providers. There are big
enterprises and infrastructure players who have large amounts of space
as well and are likely to have continued needs.

2. I'm still baffled as to why the lawyers agreed with me when I
stated the same thing re unfair and lopsided fulfillment with this
policy, but disagreed with me on another, similarly functioning
regional policy

3. IANAL, but seems to at least offer a whiff of anti-trust i.e.
restraint of free trade.