[arin-ppml] Sensible IPv6 Allocation Policies - Rev 0.8 (PP 121)

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 11/17/2010 12:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Nov 17, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> On 11/17/2010 10:10 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2010 8:20 AM, ARIN wrote:
>>>>> Policy Proposal 121: Sensible IPv6 Allocation for ISPs
>>>>>
>>>>> ARIN acknowledges receipt of the policy proposal that can be found below.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next
>>>>> regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly
>>>>> scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended
>>>>> to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how
>>>>> to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.
>>>>>
>>>>> The AC invites everyone to comment on the 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 Rationale section is missing a discussion of the impact of this
>>>> policy change on DFZ growth.
>>>>
>>> I believe that if anything, it would reduce DFZ growth, but, expect it
>>> to be mostly neutral. I left this out of the rationale section because
>>> I didn't think the impact one way or another would be enough to
>>> be particularly relevant to the discussion.
>>>
>>> Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
>>>
>>
>> I think it is important to put into the Rationale the statement that
>> this is DFZ-growth neutral, that is, if you believe that it IS DFZ-growth neutral.
>>
>> By inserting the statement that you feel it's DFZ-growth-neutral into
>> the Rationale you are showing that you have responsibly considered the
>> impact of modifying the qualification criteria on the DFZ.
>> That makes all the difference in the world.  Lacking that it makes the
>> reader wonder if this proposal has really been well thought out.
>>
> I don't believe I am changing the qualifying criteria. At least not significantly.
>
> What I am changing is the amount of space a qualifying entity can get.
>

You said in the Rationale that you want ARIN to lower prices for the 
smaller orgs.  I think that right there would encourage more of them to
get their own numbers, thus increasing the DFZ

> By increasing the maximum amount of space allowed (possibly dramatically),
> if anything, this should reduce the impact on the DFZ.
>

And the logical reason for this is....

> However, I really don't think that the IPv6 DFZ size is of tremendous concern.
> I think that the DFZ size is much more of an IPv4 issue. The IPv6 DFZ, even
> when IPv6 is fully deployed is likely to be less than 20% of the current
> IPv4 DFZ.
>
> I think that excessive focus on DFZ size has flawed ARIN policy for years

I don't agree and I think such a statement is very snobbish.  Not 
everyone has as much money as you so they can run out and buy more ram
for their routers every year.  Especially the smaller orgs who your 
purporting to help with this.  People who are concerned over DFZ bloat
are not flawed and obsessive.  If anything is obsessive it is this
proposal of yours that is obsessed with straightening up loose ends in
the NRPM.

> and including it in the rationale for this policy would only serve to further
> that practice.
>

Ah, now the real reason comes out.  It's not a logical decision it's
an illogical, emotional one.  So I wonder now if this policy proposal of 
yours is also not logical, but more emotional.  Do you spend your
free time obsessively straightening up around the house?  Do frayed 
carpets drive you insane?

Deliberately ignoring it only serves to make people think your trying to 
avoid the issue because you have something to hide.  And when you know 
others are concerned, not confronting the issue straight on and dealing 
with it is cowardly.  Espically since all it would take is a single line 
in the Rationale to indicate you had considered it.  You spent gobs of 
space in the mathematics section.  Why don't you put the single line 
after that?  Most people will have fallen asleep in the
reading of that, so few would read it and affect your "sensibilities"

As I see it, sticking one sentence in the Rationale saying that the
lowering the bar that the criteria change makes should not cause DFZ
bloat because of X is no skin off your nose.  So your refusal to do
it is self-defeating.  Which is more important, getting the proposal
accepted or maintaing your personal paradigm that even speaking about 
DFZ bloat is flawed?

Ted

> Owen
>
>