[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers

[David Farmer]

On 6/26/12 13:51 CDT, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:46 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>> ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3
>> Specified Transfers
....
>> Proposed Policy Statement
>> 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients
>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within the
>> ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in
>> whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational
>> recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA
>> by organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the
>> need for such resources in the amount which they can justify under current
>> ARIN policies showing how the addresses will be utilized within 60 months.
>>
....
>
> I am substantially in favor of increasing the planning horizon, but we
> should consider doing so incrementally. 24 months is good, 36 months
> might be better. I feel 60 months could encourage stockpiling where
> what we really need to be doing is ushering IPv6 transition.

I'm probably also OK with extending extending the supply window beyond 
24 months, at the very least having the discussion.  60 months makes me 
a little queasy, but as far as I concerned its not out of the question.

Something that might help make the 60 month figure more palatable would 
be some research, modeling, or estimates on the amount of potential 
supply of underutilized address space that is available and the 
potential demand.

Just some quick eyeballing of Geoff Huston's graphs at ipv4.potaroo.net, 
there has been about 50 /8s that have been allocated globally over the 
past 5 years.  Also, there is something like the equilivant of 50 /8s 
unrouted. So, is there really a 60 month global supply, even a major 
fraction it?  Maybe, at least by my quick eyeballing.  I'm not saying 
there is, someone needs to do some real modeling, I'm just saying that 
it doesn't seem impossible.

This is the kind of information that would help justify extending to a 
36, 48, or 60 month window.

So I'll say, I think this is a good discussion to have.  I'm skeptical 
of 60 months. I can probably support the general concept of extending 
the window.  However, some modeling of supply and demand might help 
justify the bigger windows to a broader segment of the community.

Thanks for submitting this, and I hope we can have a good discussion.

-- 
===============================================
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
===============================================