[arin-ppml] Final draft of 2010-13 for Atlanta (Rev 1.55)

[Hannigan, Martin]

On 9/29/10 10:32 AM, "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the fact that ARIN Staff is concerned that this policy may
> favor organizations who are granted reservations too much and Marty
> believes that it does not go far enough to provide relief to those
> same organizations illustrates that we have actually found a pretty
> decent compromise.

I don't think we are too far apart with respect to the concepts, it's the
mechanics and implementation that I have an issue with. In it's current form
I doubt that it is even implementable. Regardless,  the reservation
mechanisms are hugely unfair to large and small networks alike.

By reducing the allocation sizes only the larger reserved allocations are
significantly impacted. That impact is both planning and expense. The way
that the proposal reads to me is that if you make a reservation under a
class, you are assigned at min and could be max. If you are assigned the min
and the allocations are reduced based on inventory, you're good to go. If
you're reduced at the max, you're cut X% to insure that all reservations
over the lifecycle of the system are met. And everywhere in between.

//Examples

Assumptions: Normal member fees apply except when reservations reduced and
forced to the market aside from other requirements not addressed through
this proposal:

 Cost $1,000  /32  
 Need: /32
 Assignments=Assn1/2

             Assn1 Assn2 Addr Deficit Loss
 Funded         10 100   $0
 Reduce 10%     10  90   $10,000
 Reduce 20%     10  80   $20,000
 Reduce 30%     10  70   $30,000
 Reduce 40%     10  60   $40,000


If we didn't have the complexity issue, I'd support the proposal if we
implemented quarterly reductions which would be more fair. The quarterly
assignment would be based on demonstrated need:


Assumptions: Every address acquired through a transition proposal is a cost
savings to the network in a fair and equitable manner.

 Cost $1,000  /32  
 Need1: 10      Need2:  100
      
             QTRS   Need1       Need2
             12     120         1200
   Reduced 4 8      80          800
   Reduced 4 4      40          400
      
 Max Total Savings: $120,000  $1,200,000 All quarters
 Min Total Savings: $40,000   $400,000 All quarters

You might argue that the numbers are way disparate. Since the assignments
are need evaluated, the savings delta are not overly relevant. Unless we opt
to be communists[1].

If we are using a general ratio of one V6 /32 = v6 /64 with the quarterly
model we push out far more v6 that we would with the reductions as well.
Theoretical priming of the v6 pump: more is better even if shorter..


>An organization may request one reservation under each provision  listed in
>section 4.10.4. Once a reservation has been satisfied, another may be
>requested.

I'm not even accounting for the reservations in multiple classes.

Additional thoughts on leadership by such a proposal:

A. The minimum alloc is too low
B. We need to pick transition technologies, and not pick all of them
C. Make IPv4 unattractive
D. Support continued growth as much as possible during transition

1. COMMUNISM: You have two v4 /32 addresses. The state takes both and gives
you the dots.

Best,

-M<