[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Revisedandforwarded to the Board

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Scott, I think your right but keep the following in mind

Let's say the first year the ISP obtains a /20.  A year later
they have reached 80% on this and get a second /20.

A year later on this they have reached 80% on the second
and get a third /20

This happens for 5 years in a row.  At the end of the 5 years
even though they have 80% utilization on all /20's, and can
request another /20 by the rules, the fact is that they now
have a /20's worth of unused IP addresses.

Perhaps we need a policy change that states that additional
IPv4 allocation requests from ISP's cannot equal or be smaller
than the amount of unallocated space they already have,
regardless of the 80 percentile rule?

Ted 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:00 PM
> To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost
> Cc: Roger Marquis; <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy 
> - Revisedandforwarded to the Board
> 
> Michael,
> 
> I just re-read the ISP and end-user sections of the NRPM, and 
> both require 80% usage of ALL previous allocations. Can you 
> clarify whether you were referring to the NRPM, operational 
> practice, or something else?
> 
> Thanks,
> Scott
> 
> On May 6, 2009, at 8:22 PM, "Michael K. Smith - Adhost" 
> <mksmith at adhost.com  > wrote:
> 
> >> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >>>> Rather than helping the problem the fact that this 
> market is being 
> >>>> discussed is exactly what is causing the hoarding.
> >>>
> >>> I have to cry foul with this.  There's been implications 
> of hoarding 
> >>> on this list and in the last meeting but I have only seen 
> a single 
> >>> allegation posted on this list of an illigitimate
> >>> IPv4 holding, and that was a year ago.  (and it wasn't a hoarding
> >>> situation)
> >>
> >> If hoarding includes large netblocks (mainly /16s) that 
> are not used 
> >> and/or not needed I can name several, and even a cursory 
> audit will 
> >> show dozens.
> >>
> >>> Since true hoarding implies false data submitted for an IPv4
> >>
> >> This may be a source of confusion.  Hoarding does not imply false 
> >> data submitted for an IPv4.
> >>
> >> Roger Marquis
> >
> > I would argue that the present state of things actually facilitates 
> > hoarding, given that only the last allocation is assessed 
> as part of 
> > the allocation of the next.  Any previous allocations could 
> be unused, 
> > barely used or used less.  Thus, you can hoard addresses by only 
> > assigning from your last allocation and still be playing 
> strictly by 
> > the rules.
> >
> > Sadly, the concept of having to justify all of your 
> allocations to get 
> > your next one doesn't seem to get much traction.
> >
> > Mike
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>