[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-155 IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region
alh-ietf at tndh.net
Wed Jul 6 14:52:41 EDT 2011
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> writes:
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:24 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> >> ARIN-prop-155 IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region
> > Oppose as written.
> I wrote this proposal as a starting point, and expected plenty of
> spirited discussion surrounding it. Didn't expect that it would be
> quite so overwhelmingly "oppose", but those are the breaks.
Were you hoping for something more along the lines of:
"this is nothing more than human nature at its worst, hoarding in the face
If it is not clear, I oppose as written, as well as the basic premise that
one 'needs to protect a regional asset'. The RIRs were not created to be
islands, they are supposed to be facilitators in distributing the global
address pool asset. The stewardship component of that is intended to
preclude hoarding, not be the basis for regional isolationism.
It is absolutely absurd that 'the richest' (in context) region should even
have the discussion about how to prevent 'outsiders' from acquiring
resources in the face of famine. Given behavior like this, the appropriate
thing to do is change IANA policy to allow sub-/8 allocations, then recall
all outstanding space and manage the remaining pool under a common policy of
global fulfillment of need. Children fighting over toys in the sandbox are
better behaved ...
At the end of the day, this policy mindset is unenforceable for future
allocations, and does nothing to preclude an organization with existing
resources from moving those outside the region to use the new ones locally.
Get over it, IPv4 is dead; and being the most obnoxious buzzard that
protects the last of the scraps from others is not 'stewardship'.
> Unfortunately there are no easy answers to a lot of the concerns that
> folks have raised as reasons for opposing it. It would be extremely
> easy to go down the rat-hole of trying to dictate operational
> constraints by making the policy statement 4x as large, and what would
> happen is that ultimately some creative person would figure out a
> loophole and all of our efforts would be for naught until the next
> policy cycle, at which point we'd probably be overtaken by events.
> The Board doesn't like such policy proposals and will surely remand
> them for further discussion, at which point we end up kind of hosed
> because of the aforementioned cycle.
> I believe that we ought to have a policy to address the situation you
> elucidate below. That's why I wrote this proposal. Sussing out where
> the community wants to take this (or even if collectively we want to
> ignore the rising tide of opportunities for abuse and just be
> fatalistic about v4 exhaustion) is part of the whole point of the PDP.
> Discussion and modification encouraged.
> > However, I do think Robert has identified a legitimate problem.
> As much as I would like to take credit for original thought, word on
> the street is that others have already "identified" it. :-(
> > It costs less than $5000/year to establish and maintain a US
> > corporation.
> It can be done for an order of magnitude less.
> > If I'm a French or Japanese telco, what policy stops me from creating
> > a Delaware ISP subsidiary whose sole existence is acquiring ARIN IP
> > addresses and assigning them for well documented use in my European
> > Asian operations?
> You tell me. ;-)
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML