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

[Hannigan, Martin]

On 9/29/10 11:32 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> 
> On Sep 29, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
[ snip ]

>> 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.
>> 
> That's simply not true. In order for the larger reserved allocations to be
> impacted
> more than the smaller ones, the smaller ones already have to be down to a /28.
> I don't think it makes sense to try and issue addresses from ARIN in any
> smaller
> chunks.
> 

I don't believe that we're saying anything different with respect to
inequities. Look at it from this perspective; if you have 1M /28
reservations and you have 1 x /18 reservation, in order to fulfill all or
most of the /28's you'll eat away at the /18.



[ slip ]

>> //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
>> 
> I'm not sure I understand your table here, so, I won't comment.

Assume that the "multiple" /28 holders are Assn1 and the rest is Ass2. As
you drain the pool to fund the allocations of the smaller assignments you
ended up pushing the cost of replacing those addresses onto the others in
the pool.

>> 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:
>> 
> I would not be opposed to removing one quarter at a time rather than one
> bit, but, I think numerically you arrive at roughly the same result.
> 
>> 
>> 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..
>> 
> I suspect you mean one V4 /32 = one V6 /64, but, I hesitate to comment
> on speculative interpretations of your intent.

No, that's correct. V4 /32.


> 
> I do think your estimate of $1,000 per /32 is speculative at best.

What do you think that this cost is currently?


[ snip ]

> 
>> 
>> 1. COMMUNISM: You have two v4 /32 addresses. The state takes both and gives
>> you the dots.
>> 
> It's not communism to believe that you should not give all of the
> remaining space to the first person in line. I don't think anyone would
> call Ticketron/Bass/etc. communists, but, even they do not allow
> someone to walk up and purchase all of the tickets for a concert
> that is expected to sell rapidly. Being first in line should not put
> you at an overwhelming advantage over those behind you.


Not sure what the relevance of the follow-up is. No one is advocating that
anyone be able to land grab. Any policy that allows that is deficient. I'm
advocating that we abandon this proposal again.

Best,

-M<