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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.
> 

I suppose that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that preserving a /9 for those that may exist vs. using it for those that DO exist is profligate waste of resources.

> 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 issue is the various non-solutions that it spurs in the areas where runout has occurred early which then create additional costs to transition.

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

No, there are actually several other possible ways to even things out. We're not talking about perfectly even, but, several years of asymmetry is a bad thing.

> Precisely what does that solve?
> 

See Geoff Huston's presentation from Philadelphia and/or Busan.

>>  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.
> 

The presence of a transfer market alongside a free pool causes issues. It is the interaction and combination of the two factors that is creating concern.

Yes, transfers have their own set of new problems they bring to the table, but, that's an unfortunate necessity of the current state of things.

> 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.
> 

What you call good stewardship, I call a form of socialism.

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

Huh?

Owen