[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods

[Alexander, Daniel]

Does anyone share my opinion that the soft landing approach of three month
allocations was a good idea, but the trigger may have been off? Instead of
making all timeframes equal, would it make better sense to just tweak
section 4.2.4.4?

Replace:

"When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2,
the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. An
organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply of IP
addresses." 

With:

"When ARIN's available pool of IPv4 address space is less than an
equivalent /8, the length of supply that an organization may request will
be reduced. An organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply
of IP addresses."

This was discussed in the past, but may be worth another visit. One
concern I have over prop-161 is it eliminates the soft landing that many
thought was a good idea.

Dan Alexander
Speaking as myself


On 1/13/12 5:41 PM, "Michael Sinatra" <michael at rancid.berkeley.edu> wrote:

>On 1/13/12 1:06 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Owen DeLong<owen at delong.com>  wrote:
>>>     1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer
>>>justification
>>> periods
>>
>> Hi Owen,
>>
>> I OPPOSE this proposal in concept and in the particulars.
>>
>> The sole purpose of needs-based policy, the only one, is to suppress
>> frivolous consumption of a limited common resource. With transfers,
>> significant and growing sums of money change hands, a fact inherently
>> suppresses frivolous use. The need to suppress transfer-based
>> consumption with policy, if it exists at all, is consequently much
>> less than with free pool consumption.
>>
>> Just as the regulations which apply to a strip mine are not
>> appropriate when applied to a recycler, rules which are perfectly
>> rational for free pool allocations can be onerous and excessive for
>> transfers. "One size fits all" is entirely inappropriate here.
>
>Hi Bill:
>
>My hunch is that your implicit assumption is that the transfer market
>currently clears itself efficiently, or some close approximation
>thereof.  I disagree with that assumption, even if you don't hold it :).
>  I became especially aware of the problems arising from the uneven
>run-out and the issues surround ARIN's current "protection" of its free
>pool from the discussions in Philadelphia.  To be honest, there are a
>lot of issues that will be resolved once the RIRs' free pools run out
>and they transfer markets can operate with (relatively) low distortion.
>  I am not interested in speeding the run-out, but I am also not
>interested in the continued unnecessary protection of the free pool.  As
>Geoff Huston pointed out, IPv4 addresses should be used.  The fact that
>Geoff comes from the the APNIC region does not skew my view of his
>opinion, BTW.
>
>Forcing ISPs to run up the price of IPv4 resources on the transfer
>market should not be a part of ARIN policy, but it unfortunately is at
>this point.  That hurts everyone.
>
>If it's not obvious already, I support Owen's proposal, and thank him
>for submitting it.  (I was going to propose the same thing during the
>Philadelphia meeting, but I was busy and/or lazy.  Sorry about that.)
>
>michael
>_______________________________________________
>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.