[arin-ppml] Set aside round deux

Chris Grundemann cgrundemann at gmail.com
Wed Jul 28 09:24:23 EDT 2010

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 02:43,  <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
>> If you are worried about vast tracts of IPs ripe for the plucking,
>> then let's write policy to find and recover those tracts - Or at least
>> to stop Orgs with those unused/underused resources from getting more.
>> Size, type, industry are not the issues here; efficient utilization
>> is.
> Find and recover is a non-starter because it costs too much money
> for ARIN to do this kind of detailed audit.
> Efficient utilization is unknown without audits.

There are usually at least two ways to overcome an obstacle; you can
take it on and overcome it directly, or you can find a way to bypass
it. Over it or Around it.

Over it: We can write policy that lowers the level of effort for such
audits. Cleaning up WHOIS data is the best first step I believe (hence
my work to get 2008-7 adopted and my current work with pp109). Think
of this as building stairs to go over the "audit wall."

Around it: We can write policy that encourages Orgs to do their own
auditing and to find and recover their own space. Requiring more
efficient utilization of space and better proof of that utilization
when an Org comes to the troff are key plays here. Any suggestions on
how to make the ideas that Marty started this thread with better at
this are probably more on topic than either of our recent posts =).

> Therefore, make the set-aside policy only available for orgs whose
> address allocations are less than a certain threshold.

When we point fingers at X-Larges (or away from them) I think we often
miss an important point. Internet stewardship is not about protecting
any class of ISP, it is about protecting the Internet. The Internet
basically needs two things to remain effective; eyeballs and content.
What is really important is that the two can reach each other.

If a larger ISP provides Internet access to 1,000 pairs of eyeballs
and 10 smaller Orgs provide access to 100 pairs of eyeballs each, who
serves more eyeballs? Now what if the larger ISP serves those 1,000
customers using a single /22 and each of those smaller ISPs use a /24
to serve their 100 customers. Where should we look to limit access to
the transition pool? Who is more deserving of additional addresses and
who less?

My point is not that all X-Larges are extremely efficient with their
address usage (they are probably not), my point is that if we focus on
excluding one group (any group) we are missing the point; which is
getting those addresses into use, connecting as much content to as
many eyeballs as we can with the resources available to us.

> --Michael Dillon
> P.S. Fairness is irrelevant. Any set aside policy is unfair. Doing nothing is unfair.
> Life is unfair. We aren't here to change the world, just to reduce the chaos and
> disorder of the IPv6 transition.

Fairness aside, how can we make the potential proposal being discussed
here reduce that chaos and disorder more?


> Period.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list