[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4

Matthew Petach mpetach at netflight.com
Tue Jun 4 17:48:09 EDT 2013


Cautiously in favour of the idea, but I think careful rewording is needed;
was originally against, until I read Jason's follow-up explaining
intent; but as currently written I don't think I could support it.

So--advise AC shepherd work with authors on clarifying
this and then bring it back.

Matt

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:12 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> > I would have to oppose most of the statements in this proposed revision
> of the RIR principles.
>
> +1
>
> > While it is a good idea to update a document written literally a
> generation ago for a different IPv4 world, it seems obvious to me that a
> lot of the thinking that went into this 2013-4 is an attempt to rigidify
> obsolete thinking rather than to update things. This is a backwards-looking
> revision that has little support in the real world.
>
> >> Section 0: Principles and Goals of the Internet Registry System
> >>
> >> 0.1. Efficient utilization based on need (Conservation)
> >
> > This represents confused thinking. Conservation as a
> > principle does NOT necessarily mean needs-based allocation.
>
> I agree. Needs based allocation has been called into question for good
> reason these past few years. Principles should be things which aren't
> in serious, active dispute.
>
> As I said before, I think the principle we're after is sustainability.
> At the policy level conservation may be an appropriate tool of
> sustainability. The same for needs based allocation. Whether obsolete
> thinking or best available method they're tools which serve a
> principle. Neither is reasonable when standing at the top *as* a
> principle.
>
>
> >> 0.1.1. Documented Justified Need (Needs Based)
> >
> > This section attempts to codify and make permanent
> > a set of policies that were developed in the final death
> > throes of IPv4.
>
> I agree. Documentation should serve fairness and sustainability. Where
> it doesn't, it should be strictly optional.
>
>
> > The idea of authorizing intrusive "accounting of resources"
> > is precisely the opposite of the way we need to be going,
> > both in IPv4 and IPv6. We should let the market allocate
> > transfers of the fully-allocated IPv4 numbers, and current
> > policies, which give organizations blocks based on the
> > number of networks they claim and some fill ratio, for IPv6.
>
> That is unproven. However, if our stated principles would prevent us
> from giving it a chance then our stated principles are wrong and
> wrong-headed.
>
>
> >> 0.3. Uniqueness (Registration)
> >
> > This aspect of the proposed revisions really went off the rails.
> > First, uniqueness should be valorized as the single most fundamental and
> important principle of stewardship, the one to which all the other
> principles are subordinate. It is the most important justification for
> having a registry.
>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
> >> 0.4. Stewardship
> >>
> >> It should be noted that efficient utilization and hierarchical
> >> aggregation are often conflicting goals. All the above goals may
> >> sometimes be in conflict with the interests of individual end-users or
> >> Internet Service Providers.
> >
> > This section is also inappropriate for a principles document.
> > It purports to tell the current community, as well as all
> > future deliberations for the next 20-odd years, how to make
> > policy tradeoffs. That is the kind of thing that should be left
> > to the community itself.
>
> This is the one spot where I disagree with you. NRPM 6.3.8 says, "In
> IPv6 address policy, the goal of aggregation is considered to be the
> most important." That statement has proven its worth time and again.
>
> There will be conflicts between the principles. Rather than get lost
> and break into dissension every time, we should have a statement in
> the principles document which reminds us which principles are the most
> important.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130604/7a9bd99e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list