[arin-ppml] Set aside policy?

[Martin Hannigan]

The idea is something along the lines of (and this is _very_ high level)

-Eliminate facilitation and provide for transition "transition pool"
-Continued adherence to the RSA and policy
-Utilization increased to 90%
-Demonstrate that previous assignments won't meet their need
-Require addresses only be used for dual stack devices
-Raised minimum allocation unit
-30 month look forward reservations
-"take or pay"; quarterly applications based on forward estimates, and only
the fraction for that quarter allocated. No application or fail to meet
needs analysis for a quarter = return of that quarter allocation to pool
-must have received v6 allocation and must be in use
-additionally received v4 address to transition pool
-officer certification


Best,

-M<


On 7/3/10 5:08 AM, "bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com"
<bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 10:13:14AM -0500, David Farmer wrote:
>> marty at akamai.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/1/10 8:48 PM, "Scott Leibrand" <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Thu 7/1/2010 5:45 PM, marty at akamai.com wrote:
>>>>> Is there _anything_ that people would consider reasonable for a set-aside
>>>>> policy? I'm thinking about policy for transition infrastructure and
>>>>> wanted
>>>>> to see if anyone else is thinking about this.
>>>>>   
>>>> How much space are you thinking about reserving?
>>> 
>>> 
>> Are you thinking of a future/unknown TI technology or solution?
>> 
>> Or, do you have a particular TI technology or solution in mind?
>> 
> 
> back in the day,  Jon liked to use the 50% rule.
> only put 50% of the defined resource into play
> UNTIL there was a migration stratagy.
> 
> sometimes it worked, sometimes not.
> 
> if there is a reasonable chance that something new
> could emerge (routing, ad-hoc networks, IoT, research
> directions, etc..) that -don't- fit the current model
> of address allocation/assignment then it makes
> sense to hold some in reserve.  As I understand it,
> ARIN is ill equip'ed to manage such an environment since
> policy is bottom-up driven... the entrenched commodity
> markets have (kind of by design) captured the ARIN process.
> 
> if its just business as usual, then the justification for
> holding on to a "little bit" just in case, makes no sense
> at all.
> 
> --bill