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

Blake Dunlap ikiris at gmail.com
Mon Jul 15 15:00:47 EDT 2013


Exactly how is this "right sized allocation" based on network size
different than needs basis allocation?

-Blake


On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Steven Ryerse <
SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

> Note that I did say "right sized allocations" and have said multiple times
> that it is fine to match allocations with the size of the organization
> and/or the size of the organization's current network.  I also have stated
> that we need to be good technical stewards and I think most folks here
> agree with that.  I do not think a small organization like ours for example
> should ever get the technical equivalent of a /8 or even close to it.  I do
> strongly think that every organization should be able to get a right sized
> allocation if they are going to use it as that grows the Internet - which
> in case folks forget is ARIN's mission.
>
> 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: Matthew Wilder [mailto:Matthew.Wilder at telus.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 12:18 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse; David Farmer
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - revised
>
> In that case, I would like to request a /8 of IPv6 space.  That seems
> right to me since conservation isn't a concern anymore.
>
> To be clear, IP Address schemes can only be updated so far.  As far as I
> can tell IPv4 address schemes have never extended beyond the initial 32
> bits they started off with, and IPv6 also will not change from a 128 bit
> address length.  Granted, CIDR was introduced to IPv4 to extend the
> timeline for exhaust of IPv4 address resources, but this is exceptional,
> and not the rule (certainly for the future).
>
> And the cost you mention is not a negligible one.  Think of the amount of
> time and energy that has already gone into IPv6 only to approach 2% of
> global IP traffic on IPv6.  I believe it is in the community's best
> interest to conserve the word conservation in some form.  As David said,
> the conservation of IPv6 resources is going to be much different than
> conservation of IPv4 resources.
>
> By the way, for those not following, there is a push from many member
> nations of the ITU and others in the international community to
> redistribute the governance of the internet in their interests.  Do not be
> surprised if the nations gain the ability to allocate IP Address resources
> to the entities within their borders.  In that world, IPv6 exhaust is only
> a short matter of time.  If we can at least embed the concept of
> conservation of IPv6 resources now in some way, the global community will
> thank us a generation or two from now.
>
> mw
>
> On July 12, 2013 at 08:50 AM, "Steven Ryerse" <
> SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
> > I disagree. Unlike say land which they aren't making more of, address
> schemes can alway be updated like IPv4 to IPv6. When IPv6 runs out we'll
> switch to IPv8 or whatever (albeit at a cost) or something better than IP.
>  Thus we don't need to conserve at all - we just need to do right sized
> allocations so we don't have to pay the additional cost to switch sooner
> than we have to.  Nothing like ipv4 or ipv6 or asn numbers need to somehow
> be conserved for a rainy day if there are folks that want to use them.
>
>
> > Bill is right that the word conserve needs to be removed.
>
> > Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jul 11, 2013, at 7:59 PM, "David Farmer" <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
> > > I really don't understand this debate on Conservation. :{
> > >
> > > There are some that seem to be claim that conservation is irrelevant
> with IPv4 free pool run-out.
> > >
> > > I say so what!  We still have IPv6 and ASNs to worry about, and while
> both resource pools are GARGANTUAN by comparison, they are not infinite.
>  Therefore some concept of conservation remains necessary, obviously not
> the same concept that we have had in IPv4 for the last 20 years or so.
>  But, completely eliminating conservation as a concept, principle, or goal,
> of how we manage Internet number resources, seems like the proverbial
> "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
> > >
> > > Then others are not willing to concede that anything changes with IPv4
> run-out.
> > >
> > > I'll can say I really hope something changes, the focus on
> conservation that became necessary in the late '90s for IPv4, has nearly
> lead to the abandonment of other principles like the end-to-end model, open
> availability of resources (anyone building a network should be able to get
> unique addresses), etc...
> > >
> > > So how do we move forward? I suggest;
> > >
> > > 1. Can everyone concede that going forward, conservation is much less
> important, but that the need for some concept of conservation doesn't
> completely go away either.
> > >
> > > 2. Lets focus the conversation on other issues for a while, let this
> cool down a little, then come back to it after we've cooled down and maybe
> have resolved some of the other issues.
> > >
> > > 3. Are there other concepts, principles, or goals that were missing?
> > > I suggested earlier that there were additional principles we should
> > > be looking at.  An candidates has come up in the conversation today
> > > that I would like to propose;
> > >
> > >   0.2 Fair Distribution
> > >
> > >   The principle of Fair Distribution is the precept that the
> > >   fundamental purpose of Internet number resources management is to
> > >   distributed unique number resources in a fair and impartial manner
> > >   to entities building and operating networks, for benefit of all
> > >   Internet users equally, and thereby facilitating the growth and
> > >   sustainability of the Internet.
> > >
> > > I'd make this #2 behind Registration, and I'd suggest Conservation
> could follow and ties into this principle through the concepts of
> "fairness" and "sustainability"
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > --
> > > ================================================
> > > David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
> > > Office of Information Technology
> > > University of Minnesota
> > > 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> > > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> > > ================================================
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130715/a0e2c9e8/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list