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

[Owen DeLong]

I want ARIN to be able to continue to hand out resources indefinitely.

I don't see that changing based on this policy.

The policy scope applies only to IPv4 resources. For those, it is not a question of how long we want resources to be available, but, how we distribute the pain of runout.

Owen

On Mar 14, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> 
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.