[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

[Brandon Ross]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Jason Schiller wrote:

> This is an unfair burden to organizations who require lots of address
> space for growth.

I lack sympathy for large organizations.  I've worked extensively both 
with the very large and very, very small.

The large can easily afford to dedicate a resource solely to dealing with 
address acquisition activities.  Many of those in this very debate are in 
these positions.

Smaller providers are most certainly, much more burdened by the needs 
assessment process.

Actually, Jason, I would argue that treating all comers the same as far as 
address acquisition goes, actually puts smaller entities at a very great 
disadvantage to the large carriers, and is a very great competitive 
advantage to those large service providers.

> Should small organizations be able to by a virtually unlimited amount of
> address if they can afford it?

We talked about a /12 cap, so for the purposes of this conversation, no, 
that is not what is proposed.

> Should a large organization (who can demonstrate need) only be permitted
> to buy two years worth of address space?

Again, for the purposes of this thread, no change is proposed if the 
entity has an aggregate of more than a /12.

> Never mind anti-competitive behavior of cornoring the market on IPv4 
> addresses, think about reasonable players the feel the need to stockpile 
> enough addresses to continue doing native IPv4 longer than their 
> competition in order to not loose their customer base to competitors who 
> can offer a better native IPv4 product when you can't.

If that's a concern, I would argue that the larger providers are in a much 
better position to do exactly that under needs basis than smaller 
providers would be if they didn't have to comply with needs assessments. 
Many large providers, since they have easy access to professionals, have 
been able to acquire much more address space than a smaller provider, not 
because they actually have more of a need for it, but because they are 
more knowledgeable of the process and have the time/resources to execute the 
process.

> Which means getting years worth of IPv4 space...
> Which means we are not going to run out...
> Which means we can continue to save by deferring the cost
> of deploying IPv6...
> Which menas buying more space...

Until the space becomes more expensive than the cost to deploy IPv6, 
which, despite our desires as engineers, is EXACTLY the correct time to 
deploy IPv6 from a business point of view.

> If you are looking to make needs justification easier then maybe something
> like:
> - any org can transfer a single /22 no need required

A /22 is pretty small, but I would support any smaller size without needs 
basis rather than what we have now, none at all.

-- 
Brandon Ross                                      Yahoo & AIM:  BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667                                                ICQ:  2269442
Schedule a meeting:  https://doodle.com/bross            Skype:  brandonross