[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - revised

[Tony Hain]

I am opposed as written:::

Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com>
> wrote:
> > I see conservation not as a principle, I mean really the guiding
> > principle should have been distribution of addresses, not conservation
of
> them.
> > The goal was to grow the Internet through the dissemination of
addresses.
> > Conservation was not the principle, it was the means to prevent the
> > emptying of the free pool by bad actors.
> 
> Not true. As I have pointed out in several fora several times before,
> conservation of the number space is NOT the same as conservation of a free
> pool of addresses. The principle here is conservation of the number space
-
> the whole thing, not one arbitrary slice of it.
> 

Conservation is a tool to implement fairness under the stewardship
principle. It is not in itself a principle, and it is antithetical to the
overall mission of "distribution". 


> The definition of conservation from the science dictionary may be helpful
in
> illustrating what is meant by conservation of Internet
> numbers: Conservation is generally held to include the management of
> human use of natural resources for current public benefit and sustainable
> social and economic utilization. In this case the resource is the unique
> Internet number spaces (not just free pools).

In common use, conservation is the act of withholding a resource for
consumption at a future date. Rather than debate which definition to use,
why not drop the term altogether? It adds no value, and distracts from the
overall goal of establishing a replacement for 2050.

> 
> > These recent incarnations of this proposal continue to try to shoehorn
> > conservation as a principle, even to the point of including
> > conservation inside registration.
> > I don't think it is either a principal or a goal, for that matter,
> > just a protective mechanism for free pool addresses.
> > With the exhaustion of the free pool, conservation has no place in the
> NRPM.
> > Until that time, we don't need to clutter the NRPM with some hoary
> > language from another era.
> 
> If I can be so trite as to quote myself:
> 
> "Understanding that the useful life of IPv4 is far from over (raise your
hand if
> you have used IPv4 for a critical communication in the past 24 hours)
makes it
> quite easy to see that we still have a need to "maximise the lifetime of
the
> public IPv4 address space."
> 
> In fact, the IANA and RIR free pools have essentially been a buffer
protecting
> us from those who would seek to abuse the public IPv4 address space. As
> long as there was a reserve of IPv4 addresses, perturbations caused by bad
> actors could be absorbed to a large extent by doling out "new" addresses
> into the system under the care of more responsible folks. Now that almost
all
> of the public IPv4 address space has moved from RIR pools into the "wild,"
> there is arguably a much greater need to practice conservation. The loss
of
> the RIR free pool buffer does not mark the end of "the lifetime of the
public
> IPv4 address space" as Tore suggests but rather marks our entry into a new
> phase of that lifetime where stockpiling and hoarding have become even
> more dangerous."[1]

I agree with Chris that there is no real distinction between the free pool
and the overall space. Stewardship applies to all. That said, 'conservation'
itself is not a useful term when applied to the whole. In particular, when
applied to the IPv4 space the argument that we are protecting for 'future
use' is absurd. Wasting time over how to hoard the last bits is not moving
the Internet forward. As I have pointed out before, ARIN needs to return 1
/8's worth of IPv4 to IANA as it was acquired under the pretense of use
within 2 years, and as that has not happened, it needs to go back now so
that others may use it. ... Once we get to the point of ARIN without a free
pool, the discussion about policies and principles will align closer to
reality.

Tony


> 
> > I am still against the proposal.
> 
> As is your right.
> 
> Cheers,
> ~Chris
> 
> [1] - http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130523_removing_need_at_ripe/
> 
> > Regards,
> > Mike Burns
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> 
> --
> @ChrisGrundemann
> http://chrisgrundemann.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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.