[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size

[Christopher Morrow]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think it's big enough either since I initially proposed a /14.
> Getting it on the docket was the goal and modifying it to a /15 to
> silence the minority majority was the path of least resistance.
>
> There were ~1900 applicants with an expected success rate of 70%
> leaving ~1300 which most are primarily being applied for by currently
> US companies. There are some foreign entities, but it's noise. If you
> assign a /24 to each you're looking at a little more than a /14. The
> noise should allow for the impact of IX's and other CI. I think a /14
> is right.

i'm not sure there's a simple/explanable way to get to a /14 ... TODAY
there are 1900, but ICANN re-opens requests in a few months right?
then there will be 'more', no idea how many.

if pushed, I could say 'sure, 14 seems ok', but really I don't feel
comfortable with 16, nor 15, nor 14...

>
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Christopher Morrow
> <christopher.morrow at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Gary Buhrmaster
>> <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Christopher Morrow
>>> <christopher.morrow at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> .....
>>>>> Given ICANN's discussions to significantly expand the number of gTLDs, I
>>>>> think expanding the CI reservation from /16 to /15 is a reasonable
>>>>> precaution.  However, my prediction is that a /15 should be sufficient for
>>>>
>>>> I don't disagree that 'enlarging it..' seems good. I don't get a good
>>>> feeling at all about how large is 'enough'.
>>>>
>>>>> several years of gTLD and other CI growth, I'm think 2 to 5 years. If that
>>>>> turns out to be incorrect, then I would support expanding the reservation
>>>>> with future returned space as necessary.  But, I think we can take wait and
>>>>> see approach in dealing with that contingency.
>>>>
>>>> I think the timeframe is not 2-5 yrs, but 'how long is it that v4 is
>>>> still relevant/required at the TLD level?" and I'd expect that to last
>>>> much further out than 2-5yrs... I was thinking at least 10 if not 20
>>>> yrs.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I am afraid that the only answer of how much
>>> space is enough, or how long will IPv4 be relevant will be of
>>> the form "We will know it when we experience it".  Enlarging
>>> the CI reserved space now seems to have little long term
>>> downside (since we can always reduce it if not needed), with
>>> the upside of having the space if we need it (for 10+ years).
>>>
>>> I support the policy.
>>
>> I forgot to say that in general I support the policy, I just don't get
>> a good feeling that /15 is large enough.
>> I also (as said) don't know what would be 'large enough', so... sure, 15.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.