[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4

[CJ Aronson]

Needs basis did indeed exist before 1997 as @Home did not get all of
24.0.0.0/8 but only 24.0.0.0/14 and to get more I had to sit down with Joh
Postel and some other folks to write essentially what the cable policy
still is today.   Earlier in the 90s I was working with the InterNic and
before that the SRI NIC on behalf of BARRNet customers to request address
space and to provide justification.  That indeed is what -actually-
happened because
I lived it.

The really super cool thing about then (the early 90s)  is that the network
was breaking down because of the size of the routing table and we didn't
have CIDR yet.  So we would get a block of /24s that we couldn't aggregate
and that made the routing table even bigger.  You only got the number of
/24s you could justify because we were running out of /16s.  (or back
then.. class Bs)

In the 80s it was certainly easier because the Internet didn't really exist
and no one thought it would be this big.  So what did it matter if a
university who needed probably more than a B would get an A?   There were
plenty of them right?

----Cathy


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
> On Jun 3, 2013, at 17:20 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:11 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> >> Eventually, yes that was the case, and was definitely the case by the
> time
> >> RFC 1366 was published, However it was still technically possible to
> get a
> >> class A even then, look at Section 4.1.
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Regardless of what might have been possible under conditions now past,
> > what actually did happen is that the first IPv4 /8's were preemptively
> > assigned without any kind of needs analysis at all. For smaller
> > requests (for shrinking versions of smaller) the practice of assigning
> > addresses without substantive consideration of "need" continued until
> > 1997. That's what -actually- happened.
>
> THis is not true. What is true is that the needs analysis was rather
> limited and
> consisted, essentially, of determining that anyone running an NCP network
> at the time would need to run an IP network to move forward.
>
> This seems like a pretty reasonable determination of need at the time.
>
> > At a guess, I'd say Jon's response was never "come back later." I'd
> > guess something more along the lines of, "Are you sure you what you
> > want to do really takes that many addresses?"  I never met the man, so
> > I can't say that with any confidence.
>
> Jon was a very reasonable and personable man. I have no trouble believing
> David's characterization that he would likely have told someone whose need
> up to 5 years out was 0 hosts that they should come back when that number
> was larger than 0.
>
> I can also accept that he would likely have asked the other question in a
> case
> where someone offered 32 hosts in a request for a class B.
>
> Nonetheless, the point is that your documents do show an implementation of
> needs-basis as a principle that predates ARIN and those that knew Jon have
> consistently stated that he always applied an expectation that addresses
> were
> issued to a specific organization for a specific purpose and should be
> returned
> when that purpose was no longer valid.
>
> While I realize this latter part has not been all that well followed and
> that there
> is a fair amount of money and therefore a fair number of parties pushing
> for
> that part to just sort of fade into obscure history, it does not change
> the fact that
> he stated as much to numerous people on  numerous occasions.
>
> >> Therefore, I believe operational need is a principle that MUST be
> included.
> >
> > I respectfully disagree. Needs assessment is a tool for conservation.
> > It's a coarse tool at that... consistently either too permissive or
> > too restrictive. And we use it badly, demanding predictions that
> > depend on unknowable variables, shortening prediction periods to the
> > detriment routing scalability and too frequently failing to check on
> > how the predictions panned out.
>
> Needs assessment serves purposes other than conservation. It also works
> to ensure that resources are handed out in a fair and consistent manner. It
> provides for a certain level of transparency in the operation of the
> registry
> while still protecting some privacy of resource holders.
>
> > "Operational need" is a just a tool that supports conservation for the
> > sake of sustainability. If a better tool proves itself, we shouldn't
> > hesitate to jettison operational need.
>
> Which can be done through the PDP when and if such a tool presents itself.
>
> If adopted, 2013-4 is not an immutable document. It will simply be an
> additional
> part of the NRPM still subject to the same PDP as the rest of ARIN policy.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130604/ac030e48/attachment.htm>