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

Chris Grundemann cgrundemann at gmail.com
Mon Jul 15 17:05:28 EDT 2013


On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
> wrote:

>  If you are publicly traded and your company’s revenues are public then
> the size of the company is available to all.  This could be used to make
> sure only a large organization who might actually have use for it can get a
> /8 or other large
>

I can imagine many organizations that make lots of money but have very
small networks, and many other organizations that make little to no money
but have large networks. In other words, I don't see size of revenue as a
good proxy for size of network. The same is generally true for number of
employees, and basically every stat other than "how big is the network you
operate and how fast is it growing?" That may effect the other metrics but
I don't see a conclusive, reliable, direct, and proportional link between
any of them.


> block size.  The other info that could be used is how much resource does
> an org have now.  If they have a /8 they might really have use for another
> /8.  If they have a /22 they might really have use for another /22.
> Obviously the org with a /22 isn’t likely to have use for a /8.  Orgs with
> multiple allocations already can add them together including legacy
> blocks.  An org that has no allocation or one up to a /22 allocation should
> be able to qualify for the currently defined minimum sized block which I
> believe is currently a /22 .  The rare case where an org with a very small
> or no current allocation has use for a very large block can be handled as
> an exception with more proof required that the block they are requesting –
> I’m thinking this would require a manager at ARIN to handle.  I’m guessing
> it is rare that an org needs to add more than double what they already have
> allocated and those can be special cases handled as exceptions with
> additional proof required.  In this way the blocks allocated are right
> sized for the size of the org requesting the allocation.  There are some
> smart folks in this community who might be able to tweak this idea and make
> it better, especially for larger allocations.
>

A lot of this sounds reasonable, it all also sounds like possible tweaks to
the manner in which need is assessed at ARIN. I don't see anything here
that is inherently or necessarily out of line with the principle of
conservation. What you are describing here are implementation details of
one of the principles included in this draft policy from what I can tell.

Cheers,
~Chris


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *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*
>
> ** **
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks
> Logo_small.png]℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.****
>
>         Conquering Complex Networks℠****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Blake Dunlap [mailto:ikiris at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 15, 2013 3:01 PM
> *To:* Steven Ryerse
> *Cc:* Matthew Wilder; David Farmer; arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles -
> revised****
>
> ** **
>
> 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.****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130715/7bb050ce/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130715/7bb050ce/attachment.jpg>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list