[arin-ppml] ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles / Request for General Thoughts

[Tony Hain]

Jason Schiller  wrote:
Tony,

I am confused by your post.

You state that "The point of "needs based" distribution is to preclude a
run-on-the-bank-because-you-can" wrt the free pool.

You then state that "One could go so far as to argue that "need" in an 
IPv4 market distribution model is less about conservation, and more 
about precluding hoarding and speculative market manipulations, so 
functionally "conservation" is a term that is OBE and applied only to the 
IPv4 free-pool."

Are you saying needs based prevents a run on the bank emptying of
the free pool, and needs based IPv4 transfer market helps prevent 
hoarding and driving the price of address space up higher.  These two
things are functionally equivalent, are needed, but cannot both be 
lumped under the term "conservation"?  In other words this is a 
semantics problem, but not an intent problem. 

TH >>> My point was that "conservation" is a useless term without an IPv4
free-pool, so each of the justifications for "need" have to find a new
title.

I do hear your point about not being overly efficient on IPv6 allocations /
assignments.  I feel the current draft policy covers that with some text
like:

"Care must be taken to ensure balance with these conflicting goals given
the 
resource availability, relative size of the resource, and number resource
specific 
technical dynamics, for each type of number resource. For example,
efficient 
utilization becomes a more prominent issue than aggregation as the IPv4 free
pool 
depletes and IPv4 resource availability in any transfer market decreases. 
Conversely, because the IPv6 number space is orders of magnitude larger
than 
the IPv4 number space, the scale tips away from efficient utilization
towards 
hierarchical aggregation for IPv6 number resources."

And I believe the current ARIN policy also supports this approach for 
more liberal IPv6 usage, and is consistent with this draft.  

TH >>> I don't believe there is a problem with current policy, so much as
the potential for this mission definition to make it more difficult to
maintain in the future.

__Jason

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:

That said, translating 2050 principles into current & forward thinking RIR
policy needs to happen. In that light "Stewardship" of public resources is
the mission, not a policy point, as policies are applied to achieve the
mission. The point of "needs based" distribution is to preclude a
run-on-the-bank-because-you-can, but as I said earlier in an IPv6 context
this has to avoid being so focused on 'conservation' that it precludes
innovation. One could go so far as to argue that "need" in an IPv4 market
distribution model is less about conservation, and more about precluding
hoarding and speculative market manipulations, so functionally
"conservation" is a term that is OBE and applied only to the IPv4 free-pool.
If "efficient" still needs to be on the list as a measurement-metric /
enforcement-stick, combine it with routability, and make it something like
"routing efficiency within the deployed technology". This would allow a home
/ SMB routing technology to be less "efficient" than a professional network
engineer, as well as allow for new / different / non-hierarchal  routing
technologies to emerge over time.  I would also argue that "uniqueness" is
not an operating principle, as much as a means to achieve the principle of
"public documentation". "Registration" as an RIR principle is circular and
says the RIR's mission is simply to sustain itself.

Tony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 10:25 AM
> To: 'Tony Hain'; 'Chris Grundemann'; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles / Request for General
> Thoughts
>
> Tony
> These are very valuable and insightful comments. I would take issue only
> with one part of your conclusion:
>
> > While the survey is a great
> > starting point, it might make more sense to have Arin hire a
> > professional survey developer to create the questions for an "unbiased
> > about the outcome" manner as possible.
>
> While I am persuaded by your view that questions we are being asked are
> suffused with IPv4-think, in many ways Chris's survey was an accurate
> reflection of the content of 2013-4 itself, which is also suffused with
IPv4-
> think. It would not make sense I think to hire a professional survey
> developer, when the problem we have is not so much the nature of Chris's
> questions as it is the proposal we are working on. A professional survey
> developer hired by ARIN could not (and should not) be developing a policy
> proposal.
>
> In short, Chris is fulfilling his role as AC shepherd and with the
feedback from
> this survey, and from good comments such as yours, the author of this
> proposal should be able to go back to the drafting table and make some
> substantial changes and improvements.

_______________________________________________
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.




-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006