[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2012-4: Return to 12 Month Supply and Reset Trigger to /8 in Free Pool

[Joe Maimon]

ARIN wrote:
> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-4
> Return to 12 Month Supply and Reset Trigger to /8 in Free Pool


Very opposed.


 >  Staff Assessment.
 >
 > • Issuing a 12-month supply of IPv4 addresses will likely significantly
 > accelerate the depletion of ARIN’s existing IPv4 free pool.
 > Historically, ARIN’s IPv4 consumption rate was roughly doubled when
 > issuing a 12-month supply vs a 3-month supply.
 > o From 2008 through 2010, ARIN issued 3.36, 2.46, and 2.69 /8s
 > respectively when issuing a 12-month supply, vs 1.32 /8s in 2011 when
 > the 3-month supply policy went into effect.
 >
 > • With the reintroduction of a 12-month supply window, there is the
 > possibility that several very large requests could quickly deplete
 > ARIN’s free pool. In light of this fact, the community may want to
 > consider bringing back a maximum allocation/assignment size.

How long do you want ARIN resources to be generally available for?

1-2 years?

3-5 years?


>
> Rationale:
>
> There has been discussion in the community that ARIN's inventory of IPv4
> addresses may be excessive given the reduction in the rate of
> consumption which is concurrent with the reduction to a 3 month supply
> when ARIN received its last /8 at IANA run-out.

In other words, soft landing is working surprisingly well, cutting the 
burn rate and extending ARIN's IPv4 availability, which every sane 
person should consider a good thing, considering the dismal state of 
IPv6 adoption.

> And that such an excess
> inventory in the ARIN region may be damaging the transition to IPv6 by

IPv6 does not deserve a chance if it must come from hastening the demise 
of IPv4.

Doing so is wrong and irresponsible. Is is also not within your power.

You cant kill IPv4. All you can do is try to ensure that the registries 
are not in the business of providing it.

That leaves everybody else, especially those who have gobs of it. Fine 
stewardship, that, leaving the community solely to the mercy of the 
commercial interests.

Thus taking an irresponsible idea and turning it into downright immoral.

Besides, you all had your chance to deplete ARIN, and nobody was brave 
enough to step up to that plate.



> elongating the amount of time between ARIN's exhaustion and exhaustion
> by other RIR's, thus creating a dangerous skew across parts of Internet
>  in the need to transition to IPv6.

They are welcome to try and be more responsible if they want to extend 
their availability. I welcome them doing so.

Did not APNIC do something like that already?


> ARIN's stewardship responsibilities are of primary concern in this
> region. However, restoring the a 12 month supply of addresses is
> consistent with these stewardship responsibilities.

No it isnt. Its contradictory. Its reversing an effective mechanism that 
preserves IPv4 availability to everybody within the ARIN region.

> Asking businesses to
> request addresses on a three month basis with such large inventory
> available at ARIN unnecessarily increases the cost and complexity of
> operating networks; repeated and slow interactions with ARIN, duplicate
> paperwork requirements and an inefficient use of resources by all
> compound the pain.


This is the soft landing at work.

More inconvenience, less pain.

Greater general availability, greater efficiency of resource 
utilization, more time to get further with IPv6 transition then we are 
now, gradual increase of scarcity pressures instead of sudden shocks.

All good things. Unlike this draft policy.

Best,

Joe