[arin-ppml] IP Address Policy

Thu Aug 9 19:28:41 EDT 2012

Good questions!  Actually, it seems to me that a lot of the reason why some of the policies I see are slanted towards resource denial may be that there has been a concerted effort to use policies to try to solve the IPv4 exhaustion problem and extend the date that exhaustion happens.  Unfortunately no policy can solve the Ipv4 problem no matter how well intentioned.  If solving the IPv4 problem means that some don't get the IP resources they need (especially when they are still available) - then the mission appears to have changed from advancing the Internet as the highest priority, to saving or extending IPv4 as the highest priority.  The mission statement has not been changed to that.  Even if this community thinks saving or extending is a laudable goal, that isn't the mission!  I think the time has come to reasonably allocate whatever IPv4 resources are left and get on with moving to IPv6 problems and all.  The reality is when they are gone they are gone and we all better get ready for IPv6 soon.  I already have my IPv6 address block.  

In the meantime I am strongly against using discrimination of smaller organizations (or any for that matter) to somehow try to make IPv4 last longer for larger and existing ones.  I am in favor of doing what reasonably can be done to extend IPv4 as long as no organization is discriminated against in the process.  If this lets some fraud happen then so be it.  ARINs mission should be advancing the Internet first and trying to stop fraud second or maybe fourth.  In the scheme of things does it really matter that much if there is some fraud involved with folks getting some /22 blocks or whatever the current minimum would be set at?  You can make a hundred arguments why a smaller organization (or any) shouldn't get IP resources but all of them - end up NOT advancing the internet - which is ARINs reason to exist.

The right way to extend IPv4 if that is the goal this community & ARIN wants to pursue, is to have ARIN approach the large /8 or whatever legacy holders and ask for their help in that endeavor.  (Maybe this is already happening.)  To be successful to make that happen, Arin & this community needs to demonstrate to these legacy holders satisfaction that they would act in their best interests ongoing since these legacy block holders are in a position of strength - since they already have been assigned these resources and control them today.  If they look back at this community and see that for whatever reasons some member(s) of this community are denied needed resources (like us) for whatever reason then I suspect they would be wary of participating since this community might in the future decide to deny them resources they think they need at that time.  It is much safer and easier for them to stand pat and not join ARIN in the endeavor to extend IPv4 life and hoard those addresses for themselves - and until they are forced to go to IPv6 they already have all the IP resources they need - and there is no risk they could be in a position to be denied whatever IPv4 resources they might need.  The actions of this community and the policies they put in place ongoing have consequences beyond what can be seen here.  Could you blame them for deciding they should stand pat with what they have and better be safe than sorry.  

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠

-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Blecker [mailto:cblecker at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 6:18 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you very much for clearing up the record.  I do stand by my 
> original point that it is not reasonable to deny resources solely 
> because of organization size.  The BGP policy discriminates against 
> smaller organizations and that is why I am making such a fuss over it.  
> As I mentioned I will be formally submitting my proposed change to 
> ARIN policies that I submitted in my first post on this subject.  This 
> is the very simple policy that I am going to propose:
>
>
>
> “Regardless of any other ARIN Policy,  ARIN will allocate an IP block 
> matching ARIN’s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or 
> entity that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.”

How do you define "reasonably demonstrate"? How would you protect against abuse/fraud (such as setting up a shell company, submitting a request for IPs, and getting them without further justification)? With IPs being a limited resource, would you advocate to reclaim the IPs if they aren't in use (being that getting them from ARIN is so easy)?

Cheers,
Christoph

> I hope you and others will decide to support it.
>
>
>
> Steven L Ryerse
>
> President
>
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>
> 770.399.9099 - Office
>
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>
>
>
> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>
>         Conquering Complex Networks℠
>
>
>
> From: David Miller [mailto:dmiller at tiggee.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 5:53 PM
> To: McTim
> Cc: Steven Ryerse; arin-ppml at arin.net
>
>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy
>
>
>
> On 8/9/2012 4:44 PM, McTim wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello Steven,
>
>
>
> If you go through the thread, you will find that you are indeed the 
> first to use the word cabal in this thread.
>
>
> In truth, I believe that I was the first to use the word cabal.
>
> Steven Ryerse wrote:
> "...it is not reasonable for a monopoly to deny a resource request 
> just because others in the community don’t want me to have the 
> resources."
>
> David Miller wrote:
> "There is no cabal controlling address allocations. There is no group 
> of people in the community that voted against or "don't want" you to 
> have resources."
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Steven Ryerse 
> <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
> It’s funny, there is no vinegar in my first post on this subject but 
> it sure generated some aimed at me!
>
>
>
> your first few posts in this thread were all vinegar.  Read them 
> again, you want a pony and
>
> threaten to pitch a tantrum until ya get one (at least that's the way 
> it reads to me).
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A 
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> PPML
>
> 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:
>
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.