[arin-ppml] Thoughts on Conservation [was: Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - revised]

[Mike Burns]

>> I say that conservation as effected through RIR policies have never been> 
>> directed at the utilization of allocated addresses, except in the context 
>> of
> additional free pool allocations.

>That should read "except in the context of additional allocations."
The free pool has nothing to do with it. Really. If you want more
addresses (from any source) it seems perfectly reasonable to ensure
that all the other addresses you have are actually being used, if they
are not, you don't need more addresses. This feels like common sense
to me.

That's right, the only time utilization was considered was in the allocation 
of new addresses, but if there truly is a conservation principle that 
applied to the entire address space, then we should not have specifically 
said that we would *not* consider utilization in the RSA. To me it is 
entirely unreasonable for stewards to extend their grasp beyond what is 
minimally required. Really, the free pool has everything to do with 
conservation in RFC-2050, as did RFC-2050's language about transfers, which 
was in place to protect the free pool from repeated allocation/transfer 
cycles by bad actors.


>> Considering that as stewards we were charged with growing and sustaining 
>> the
> Internet, it made absolute sense to try to get as many addresses allocated
> as possible, constrained only by the need to protect the free pool from 
> bad

>Again, the constraint was and is protection of the number space, you
are elevating the free pool to an unwarranted level of attention in
order to claim that the principle disappears with the free pool. The
fact remains that we are discussing conservation of the entire
Internet number space(s) and have never been explicitly limited to
conservation of the free pool. In fact, conservation of the free pool
is antithetical to conservation of the number resource as a whole
because our goal is efficient utilization, not maintaining a perpetual
free pool.

IMO, you are erroneously elevating the allocated pool to a level which 
requires some foggy conservation principle be applied to it, which the RSA 
seems to ignore.
I am describing the thought processes that went into the writing of the 
RFC-2050, why conservation was necessary, and why it only applies to 
unpriced addresses.
You continue to claim that what we are discussing is the conservation of the 
entire Internet space, but that is merely an assertion on your part. Your 
last sentence there makes no sense if you contemplate bad actors accessing a 
free pool with no conservation principle attached.



>I have not seen anyone propose that we dismantle the existing paradigm
(save those who wish to drop needs assessments completely) nor anyone
proposing a new ongoing audit and revocation mechanism. Let's stick to
the facts and proposals that are on the table, I'm passionately
against the slaughter of unicorns but I doubt that's relevant to this
discussion...

You are the one proposing change here.
And even though there are not currently any proposals on the table to begin 
auditing and revokations, the placement of the conservation principle in the 
NRPM with the assertion that it covers all addresses will act to bolster any 
such pending proposal. That's why I am opposed to the proposal.

Regards,
Mike