[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-129: IPv4 Addresses for Process Participants

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 21, 2011, at 1:23 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 1/21/2011 1:20 PM, Kevin Stange wrote:
>> 
>> That wasn't the point.  We as participants don't have any greater need
>> than those that do not.  You're suggesting that my organization gets to
>> greedily take space ahead of some other organization that may need it
>> first, more urgently, when I still have a free pool left I'm allocating
>> from and that organization may not.
> 
> Yes. Just a few days before...
> 
>> While I would love to hoard some IPv4 to stave off my local runout, this
>> is completely against the spirit of the existing allocation process.
> 
> The behavior of ARIN post-runout with regard to IPv4 space will *also* be completely against the spirit of the existing allocation process.
> 
Not true.

The spirit of the current allocation process is "first come first served, limited to anticipated need in a reasonable time frame".

The current allocation process even provides for shortening that time frame from 12 to 3 months upon IANA exhaustion.

Once ARIN runs out, that spirit remains in effect through the Waiting List policy and if ARIN receives returned address space,
it will be issued on that basis to those on the waiting list.

While ARIN will not be able to make very many (if any) allocations after runout, the spirit of the policy will remain in effect.

> The other organization will come with a perfectly valid justification, and ARIN won't fill it. How is *that* fair? (It is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean it is fair or nice)
> 
It is generally considered fair that if you got in line behind the guy who bought the last widget, you don't get one.

True, it would be considered somewhat unfair if the guy in front of you bought 1,000 widgets and you were out in the
cold to buy just 1. However, the approach usually taken to resolving this issue is to limit the number of widgets you
can purchase per position in the line to N (where N is dependent on the context and the nature of the widgets in
question). I believe that our limitation to anticipated need in the current policy is a reasonable value of N and that
the shortening of the anticipation period in current policy represents a reasonable adjustment to N based
on changing circumstances.

How is this situation different from standing in line to buy widgets and discovering that the last one was
purchased by someone that happened to be ahead of you in the line?

That's not unfair, it's just reality.


Owen