[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-132: ISP Sub-assignments Do Not Require Specific Customer Relationships
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Tue Feb 15 23:48:01 EST 2011
Prop 132 seems reasonable to me. All I have heard against it are religious arguments. E.g., the statement below
> -----Original Message-----
> Abdicating responsibility for needs-based assignment on the eve
> of addressing being fully assigned would make everything ARIN has done
> the past decade and a half a lie.
No, it simply recognizes that things are different now.
With a free pool available, making allocations according to technical needs criteria makes some sense. It was really a first-come, first-served rationing system with some rough, onetime assessment of technical need as gating function.
Once the free pool is occupied, however, needs-based allocation is impossible, meaningless.* There will be hundreds if not thousands of applicants with the same need for ipv4 addresses, and not enough address blocks to give them all. So post free pool runout, addresses _will_ be allocated via the market primarily and need secondarily. To insist on putting ARIN in the loop to assess "need" just adds needless friction.
> Nothing in the existing section 4.2 explicitly prohibits address leasing
And so you are against prop-132 why?
* unless, of course, you want ARIN deciding which uses and users are more worthy.
More information about the ARIN-PPML