[arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

[Steven Ryerse]

Thank you for your input.  Dialog is helpful.  First of all I did not advocate setting a 30 year timeline but the fact that organizations run that way should not be ignored and should be factored into decision making.  I strongly disagree that there is not enough IP addresses for even a 1 year horizon.  Nobody really knows how many unused and potentially available IPv4 addresses there really are.  Once the price is right many will come out of the closet.  But more important is that it is not ARINs charter to decide NOT to allocate.  It is ARINs charter TO allocate, prudently yes, but ALLOCATE is the primary mission.  That is why ARIN was created.  It certainly was NOT created to solve or at least improve the IPv4 exhaustion problem - and the exhaustion problem needs to be secondary to the primary mission of allocation.  

From everything I see, the Exhaustion problem and attempts to deal with it are being put ahead of the allocate mission, and that is causing smaller organizations like ours to be denied address blocks - even the minimum amount of IP addresses.  I do believe that there needs to be a fair and level playing field and my strong opinion is that some of the policies in place purposely discriminate against smaller organizations in favor of larger ones.  ARINs mission says nothing about discriminating based on size and this needs to be fixed.  Smaller organizations are just as much a part of this community as larger ones.  Thanks!

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠


-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 7:40 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

It is not (and has not been for decades) possible to take care of the entire community's needs if you define that to include 30 year projected need.

In fact, at this point, it is not even possible with one year projected need..

If you want to make the 30 year projection case for IPv6, that may make more sense.

However, with IPv4, you need to ensure you can continue to do what is practical, and fair, and that is to at a minimum, preserve your ability to give everybody something for as long as possible.

Best,

Joe

Steven Ryerse wrote:
> I thought this community had the responsibility to take care of the entire community's needs.
>
> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>
> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                       Conquering Complex Networks℠
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] 
> On Behalf Of Joe Maimon
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:54 PM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>
>
>
>> I am confused here, Paul, or perhaps you are.
>>
>> I was most certainly NOT arguing for eliminating the needs-basis test.
>> I was stating that the current 3-month window does, in fact, 
>> disadvantage some classes of ARIN members to the advantage of other 
>> classes of members.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> Members that can afford to purchase through the transfer market today 
>> now have the advantage of a 24-month window.
>> End-Users still have the advantage of a 12-month assignment window.
>>
>> The current policy means that only ISPs of limited financial means 
>> are limited to a 3-month window.
>>
>> I did not and would not advocate setting policies through any manner 
>> other than community consensus and I am surprised that you 
>> interpreted my statement in that direction.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
> Paul can speak for himself. But what I read suggests that if you define legitimate in any way other than as defined by policy, you would need to consider the members of the community whose need cannot be met in any way even now from the free pool.
>
> And that those members have found a satisfactory policy compatible solution. And that we should stop worrying about those well able to take care of themselves.
>
> 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.
>
>