[arin-ppml] Props. 122 + 123 process?

[Scott Leibrand]

(Taking this part out of order...)

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote:

> I think deciding what is and isn't an emergency is up to the AC.

Agreed.  And to help us decide in this case, I'd love to hear from the
community whether anyone thinks 122 and/or 123 address an emergency
need, and if so, why you think emergency action is needed.

Further comments inline...

> On 11/26/10 3:01 PM, "Scott Leibrand" <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> [ snip ]
>> As a result, I expect that there will be some time between IANA
>> exhaustion and the point at which ARIN is no longer able to fill
>> requests for /24s, and that this most likely will not occur until
>> after our April meeting.  However, even if the general free pool is
>> exhausted of /24s by then, we'll still have the 4.10 reserved /10
>> available, so we could modify proposal 123 slightly to carve out a /16
>> of that for critical infrastructure.  (That would be 1.6% of the /10.)
>
> The proposal says exactly what it means and nowhere does it indicate that
> anything should be withdrawn from 4.10.

Agreed.  That was my suggestion, as part of my explanation of why I
don't think 123 warrants use of the emergency PDP.

> In fact, it's unclear if 4.10 is properly sized to begin with.

Do you believe that 4.10 is too big or too small?  If it's too big, we
can reduce the size of the reservation at our next meeting, and in any
event we're in the same position with 122 as without it.  If it's too
small, then we'd need to reserve more space before ARIN exhaustion,
which 122 doesn't do.  I don't see how 122 helps either way.

>> I'm even less clear on why 122 should be considered an emergency.  In
>> its current form, it simply prevents any allocations out of 4.10's
>> reserved /10 for several months.  Since there is a /24 maximum
>> allocation size under 4.10, such allocations will only start to be
>> needed once ARIN is unable to meet /24 requests out of the general
>> pool.  And since requesters of space under 4.10 can only get one block
>> every 6 months, I don't expect much of the reserved /10 to be used up
>> before our April meeting.
>>
>> So, unless you can point out a substantial risk of irreparable harm
>> resulting from inaction between now and April, I don't see any need
>> for emergency policy action on these proposals, and would instead
>> suggest we run 123, and any suggestions people have for improving
>> 4.10, though the normal policy process.

> Scott, the commentary regarding any sort of exigent request are in the
> rationale, not the policy.

I saw that.  For 122, it says that "This will provide for time to
review our current depletion strategy and improve upon it to the
benefit of the entire community."  What I don't understand is why it
would help to suspend 4.10.  We can still review 4.10 and work to
improve upon it between now and April, whether or not we allow 4.10 to
be implemented as written.

> One would have thought that most of this would have been
> done already though and not having at least the CI portion of this thought
> out prior to exhaustion merely "looks" bad.

My own personal opinion is that CI is adequately served by existing
policy.  Up until ARIN's free pool is exhausted at the /24 level, CI
needs (and any other justified need) can be met for free.  After that,
the sponsoring organization (or any interested party) can provide
space out of their existing inventory, or can acquire it via transfer,
just as any other IPv4 user would do.  If there isn't sufficient
economic justification to acquire space for a particular CI need, then
IMO it's not really "critical", and doesn't deserve free space out of
a special pool.

I'm not necessarily opposed to 123, although at this point I remain
unconvinced that it warrants emergency policy action, as opposed to
discussion in April.

Thanks,
Scott