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

[Michael Sinatra]

On 01/28/12 19:53, Joe Maimon wrote:


> 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.

And based on John's numbers, you'd need to cut off all resource 
allocations to existing entities once you get down to that final /9 of 
unreserved space, and only allocate to new entities from that /9 from 
then on.  That sounds like a policy proposal.  Why don't you write it up 
and submit it?  I think it deserves to be discussed, whether or not I 
agree with it.

> 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.

Or, to create policies that make it so difficult to get IPv4 resources, 
that it effectively simulates runout and unevenly distorts the transfer 
market.  That's precisely why I generally disagree with your policy 
prescriptions, although I am still intrigued with only allocating the 
final /9 to new entities.

> Precisely what does that solve?

Basically, there's been a lot of hand-wringing on this mailing list (and 
at the Philadelphia meeting) about inter-RIR transfers and gaming the 
system.  Even with such policy restrictions as the 3-month window and a 
12-month restriction on transfers for allocations/assignments from the 
ARIN free pool, it is still possible to game the system, where a 
multinational entity gets addresses from ARIN and takes them to some 
other region.  That's a simple fact and it's due to uneven runout.  I 
don't think there is any combination of policies that we could create 
that would completely eliminate that gaming of the system potential.  So 
my rationale is, why punish the good guys who have legitimate uses for 
number resources just because someone is potentially game the system, 
which they will do regardless of the policy choices we make regarding 
4.2.4.4?

> 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 don't believe that "the transfer market causes issues," and I never 
said that.  I do believe that uneven runout distorts the transfer 
market, and my other views are quite consistent with that.

I also don't believe in "the consumption of ARIN resources."  Last I 
checked, ARIN doesn't own any number resources, and they aren't 
"consumed" at any rate.  They are used to provide IPv4 services to the 
Internet community.  I do understand how believing they are "consumed" 
leads to the conclusions you draw, which is precisely why I disagree 
with them.  Nevertheless, in such a situation, having ARIN hoard them is 
wasting them.

> 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.

The current policies do not guarantee that you will get what you want. 
Indeed, they will make it harder for the have-nots to get the IPv4 
resources they need, while the entities with resources to go back every 
three months will continue to do so with no problem, or they will simply 
tap the market (as John has noted) further driving up the prices of IPv4 
resources, and further driving out the have-nots.

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

So your goal is to vastly understate it by assuming it away?