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

[Owen DeLong]

> 
> 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.
> 
And if you have 1,000 /25s and 1 /18 you'll eat away at the /25s in order
to give something to the /18 guy. Correct. Not giving the entire available
space to the first guy in line just because he got there a couple of hours
ahead isn't my idea of unfair.

> 
> 
> [ 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.
> 
The same is true in reverse.

>>> 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?
> 
Since I don't have any legitimate address trading data to back it up, and,
since to the best of my knowledge, no-one has exercised 8.3 as yet,
neither do you, I would argue that any number would be speculative
at best.

> 
> [ 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.
> 
But you're opposing this proposal specifically because it doesn't
allow for the land grab.

Owen