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

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Tue Nov 30 14:09:30 EST 2010

On 11/30/10 09:44 CST, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> That thread you quote isn't relevant, IMHO. It's already been established in
> the previous public policy meeting and following that the policy is flawed
> and we have multiple parties here agreeing.

I agreed earlier and still agree there there is a strong consensus that 
4.10 should be changed.  However, a consensus that something should be 
change does not equate to a consensus for what that the change should 
be.  What we need to be doing is developing a consensus for what that 
change should be.

> I think that defending 4.10 is a waste of all of our time at this stage.

You seem to be making the leap that a consensus that 4.10 should be 
changed equates to a lack of any support for 4.10 at all.  I believe 
that to be incorrect.

> The relevant thread with respect as to why to deal with 4.10 at all is:
>      [arin-ppml] Final draft of 2010-13 for Atlanta (Rev 1.55)
> That demonstrates the weaknesses with respect to 4.10 in more detail and
> includes suggestions to make improvements.

I assume you mean the rational from that revision of the Draft Policy, 
is that correct?

 From http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-September/018174.html
> Rationale:
> The current terminology in section 4.10 is vague and could allow a variety of interpretations which could lead to allocations or assignments being made to ISPs intending to misuse the space for general deployment by using IPv6 overlay technologies as a "IPv6 deployments" requiring IPv4 space for transition. For example, the current policy could be interpreted to enable an ISP to require IPv4 addresses for all IPv6 customers to roll IPv6 out as 6rd to customers who would be otherwise unable to get IPv4 space. This is clearly outside of the original intent of the proposal which created 4.10 (6rd was not yet envisioned at the time that was written). This proposal seeks to clarify that intent and tighten up the requirements for organizations seeking to get space from this limited final resource so that it truly is available to facilitate transitional technologies.

Yes and this is why I believe there is a consensus to make a change, but 
I believe this can be accomplished with a much simpler change and 
without fundamentally changing 4.10 intent.

> Additionally, there are a number of community segments that are not well served by the original intent of 4.10 and several community members requested a mechanism for providing a certain amount of certainty with regards to obtaining space at the end. While it would be impossible to guarantee organizations all the space they need as runout is upon us, this policy seeks to provide a way for organizations to sign up for and receive a reservation from the final space proportionate to their need. The policy also includes guidelines intended to ensure that this vital community resource is given only to organizations working towards a smooth transition to IPv6 to the benefit of the full community.

This is were I have issues and I believe the consensus to make a change 
is getting lost in trying to make everyone feel like they are getting a 
piece.  We are making the ponies that Owen is referring to I believe.

> In order to meet these needs, this policy has become very complex. It is an unfortunate artifact of the complex issue it seeks to address. A great deal of effort has been made to simplify the policy as much as possible, and, special thinks go out to several members of the community for their assistance in this matter.

This is the deathblow, not just complex, but a very complex, set of ponies.

> One provision in this draft policy calls for utilization criteria which may be waived by ARIN staff discretion. The intent of this clause is to allow staff to avoid penalizing an organization for successful address conservation efforts.
> Runout is upon us. IANA will run out of the IANA free pool and issue the last /8 this policy seeks to regulate before the next ARIN public policy meeting. If we are to make any attempt at fair distribution for the sake of IPv6 deployment, this is our final opportunity to do so outside of an emergency action by the ARIN board.

If this isn't what you were referring to, please provide a more specific 

> When you analyze the spread of who benefits from 4.10 it's legacy holders.

What??  Please explain, I'm not understating the Legacy holders comment, 
I'm not getting how 4.10 benefits Legacy holders over non-Legacy holders.

> 4.10 pretty much insures that smaller entities are less-likely to be
> required to acquire address space on the open market and that legacy holders
> are going to have addresses available for medium and larger networks to
> purchase/fund through the STLS.

Yea, so.  That is more or less just a fact of life.  I'm a big guy, I 
eat a lot, I'll be hungry sooner when we run-out of food.  But, I'll 
probably last longer on my fat reserves too.

> V4 is done, no arguments here. I'm not a legacy holder and my agenda is
> mostly cost. If we're going to have policy related to transition it should
> have some support other than "there's nothing better proposed" or we ought
> to get rid of it.

Is 4.10 about transition?  4.10 says "When ARIN receives its last /8 
IPv4 allocation from IANA, a contiguous /10 IPv4 block will be set aside 
and dedicated to facilitate IPv6 deployment."  That is not explicitly 
only transition, I also take that to mean insuring that there are little 
bit of IPv4 available long after we have transitioned to IPv6.  So, I do 
not accept that 4.10 is solely about transition.  4.10 is also about 
maintain a strategic reserve of IPv4 just in case after IPv6 is more or 
less the norm, that the free flow of IPv4 resources that most people 
expect will happen doesn't materialize.

> A fix would be better which is why 122 is out there.

So as I see it, the fundamental strategy of 122, is to tell the 
community come to a consensus or else.  This is not helpful, all it is 
doing the threatening the community.  What we need is a policy proposal 
that provides a vision for what the consensus to change 4.10 should be.

I know for a fact that a large number of people, maybe even a consensus, 
thinks that there are some things that should be fixed regarding policy 
section 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients.  Anyone care to try to 
come to a consensus regarding that can of worms?  Do you think putting a 
300 day deadline on coming to a consensus on how change the transfer 
policy, or have it go away would be helpful?  I think NOT!

Policy Proposal 122 is equally not helpful!  If the community is going 
to come to a consensus on how to change 4.10, it will happen in its due 
course.  If that doesn't happen then we have a policy that the community 
came to consensus on and we will see how ARIN staff will implement it. 
Maybe that will drive a consensus for how to change 4.10.

David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list