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

[Chris Grundemann]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> How does the conservation principle, which you assert applies to both free
> pool and allocated addresses, deal with the current RSA language which
> explicitly prevents ARIN from revoking due to utilization?

Well, a principle doesn't actually "deal" with anything itself, we
(people) must deal with things - by following the guidance of our
principles...

> It would seem like the RSA is ignoring a guiding principle of stewardship!

This is however a solid observation, and I have a couple items for
consideration in response:

1) Conservation is not the only guiding principle listed here for a
reason, the principle of stewardship is in large part needed to
balance the set of guiding principles.
2) ARIN (as a community) has chosen to go down the transfers path
rather than the reclamation path, both can serve conservation if
properly managed.

Cheers,
~Chris

PS - I don't want to dominate the conversation here, so I'll likely
resist replying to further conversational/directed replies and try to
stick more to moderation, etc...

> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Chris Grundemann
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 11:46 AM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: Bill Darte ; William Herrin ; arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - revised
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
>> 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 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



--
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com