[arin-ppml] If it ain't broke... [WAS: Re: ARIN-prop-163 Dedicated resources for initial ISP allocations]

Joe Maimon jmaimon at chl.com
Thu Feb 2 17:16:37 EST 2012

Chris Grundemann wrote:
>> Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>>> I may be inclined to support, but really the free pool should be
>>> further restricted. Companies with the financial resources should be
>>> encouraged to use the transfer market. New applicants who are also
>>> small businesses, non-profit, etc. should be given priority on the
>>> free pool. This could go many ways, but I wanted to at least open it
>>> up for discussion.
> Joe Maimon wrote:
>> Jeff,
>> I agree with you, but that turkey never got airborne when I last tried it.
>> See
>> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-April/017321.html
>> Perhaps you would have better luck -- jump in the water is fine!
> Another angle to consider in this debate is that the current state of
> affairs is already conducive to this precise behavior.


I brought this up in the recent discussion on prop 161 and prop 162, 
that the current behavior was actually working much better then expected 
even as some like myself may consider it to have still only been a 
mediocre effort and that more could have and possibly should still have 
been done.

That is what I based my opposition to the proposals on.


> Currently we have a three month window for allocations from the free
> pool and a soon to be 24 month window for transfers. This disparity
> creates the encouragement and thus priority that Jeffrey calls for. I
> say this because the 3-month window creates an administrative burden
> and a limited planning horizon, thus encouraging folks to look
> elsewhere for addresses. Companies with large enough networks are
> finding new ways to optimize their internal usage to free up addresses
> for use, rather than return to the free pool. Other companies with
> large enough bank accounts are starting to turn to the transfer
> market, where they can "dip" less often; creating lower administrative
> overhead and a better planning horizon (24 months vs. 3). The net
> affect seems to be that larger, more established players are going
> elsewhere, leaving the free pool available for smaller and newer
> players. The difference in allocation windows actually creates a free
> pool reserve, quite on accident, but effective none the less.
> Something to consider.
> Cheers,
> ~Chris

I agree that these effects exist and we have definitive evidence of the 
ARIN burn rate undergoing a considerable reformation, but I dont share 
your belief that all these benefits are securely and tangibly realized 
just by accident. I think something more secure and less ephemeral 
should be on the table and that is what this proposal is.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list