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

[David Farmer]

Another option was ARIN-2011-4: Reserved Pool for Critical 
Infrastructure, which reserves the equilivant of a /16 for Critical 
Infrastructure  I was implemented in July 2011 so I would interpret that 
it is reserved until July 2014.

On 1/23/12 16:46 CST, Alexander, Daniel wrote:
> Are you referring to 2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6
> deployment? If you are, I believe that proposal set aside A /10. Not THE
> last /10. The intent would be that blocks reserved for dedicated use would
> not be considered in this calculation. -Dan
>
> On 1/23/12 5:29 PM, "Michael Sinatra"<michael+ppml at burnttofu.net>  wrote:
>
>> I would support that.
>>
>> I am at a conference now, but I am trying to remember when we hit the
>> requirement for only being able to make micro-allocations for transition
>> technologies.  Is that the last /10?
>>
>> On 1/23/12 2:25 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================