[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4

[Jimmy Hess]

On 6/5/13, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> The day is coming where IPv4 will become a whole lot more scarce as ARIN's
> supply decreases.  The needs based policies will need to be constantly
> tightened "to keep from running out".  It will be interesting to see if

Hm...  well,  a problem here with IPv4 is you can't win.   Needs-based
policies are not capable of preventing exhaustion.

After the free pool is completely exhausted;  what could the
reasonable justification possibly be,  for  keeping the needs-based
policy?

What kind of value does the needs-based policy provide the community
when it is applied to address transfers,   that don't  reduce the free
pool size anyways?

The needs based criterion when applied to transfers only serves to
stop applications for transfers of IP addresses the recipient  needs,
based on a  theory that they don't "need" all of them;   or they
should go to their ISP instead   (who may not have IP addresses to
offer them,  because the ISP's  address resources are exhausted).

But the "need"  in the needs-based policy is just an opinion  based on
the sentiment of whomever is interpreting the policy.

The word "need"  gets mixed up with these other things, that are
artificial constructions and don't have to do with need  --   as I
understand,  the transfer policies are interpreted in a capricious and
biased way --  in other words,  ARIN staff imagine  that there are
extra restrictions or constraints that are allowed to be imposed,
besides demonstration of need.

For example:  that a transfer recipient requesting a /24    has had to
have justified a /20 first.


I think if the only value  we can definitively find for needs-based
allocation of IPv4 is that ARIN's done it in the past, then it must go
:)


> everyone in this community who loves needs based policies today - will love
> to have their allocation requests denied arbitrarily in the future.  Of

--
-JH