[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4

[Joe Maimon]

Michael Sinatra wrote:
>
>> I believe we should be attempting to ensure that space remains for the
>> least served members, including those who dont even exist yet.
>
> If we wish to have address space in reserve for entities that don't 
> exist at an arbitrary time N, then we will likely be asking ARIN to 
> hoard IPv4 addresses forever.

Based on John's numbers, a /12 a year is more than enough. I believe 
8-10 years post IANA runout of guaranteed resources for new entrants for 
the cost of /9 is a quite reasonable and respectable behavior for a 
public resource stewardship entity to be engaged in.

Thanks John, Thanks Marty!


> But we need to be concerned with the issues that arise with uneven runout.

This I dont get. What issues? We should all be equally miserable? Is 
this a race to the bottom?

The only way to get even runout is for all the RiR's to decide upon a 
date after which aint nobody getting nothing.

Precisely what does that solve?

>   We also need to be concerned with issues that arise as a result of a 
> transfer market that is underway at a time when there is still a free 
> pool, when policies assumed that free pool runout would have happened 
> by now.  162 addresses those concerns and I support it.
>
> Your concern makes sense in a world where neither IPv6 nor an 
> operating transfer market exist.
>
> michael

I dont understand how you believe simultaneously that the transfer 
market causes issues but that a hastier consumption of ARIN resources 
would ameliorate them, due to the existence of said market.

I choose slower ARIN resource utilization by those that got while the 
getting was good, enabling those who did not to still obtain them 
without subjecting them to the potential intractability of the address 
market, fueled by those who did.

Thats good stewardship.

IPv6 relevancy to the consumption of IPv4 has been vastly overstated to 
date.

Best,

Joe