[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
jschiller at google.com
Wed Jun 5 11:47:02 EDT 2013
In the ARIN region, the "free pool" which supports "business as usual" can
go to zero. What I mean by this is that with the exception of special use
space (say a /10 for transition mechanisms), all other space in the ARIN
free pool could go to zero, or fragments smaller than ARN can give out.
One might conclude that IPv4 allocations and assignments by ARIN is done,
and you can only get space on the transfer market. This only remains true
so long as no organization returns space to IANA. Lets
say hypothetically some organization feels they no longer have use for five
/8s, and don't feel their organization should profit from the sale of
addresses that were lent to them for a particular use that is no longer
needed (or maybe the organization doesn't want to profit from a transfer
because it is problematic to its charter).
In this case IANA would divide the space up five ways and give one /8 to
each of the five RIRs. In ARIN's case this space would go in the "free
pool" and be available for business as usual, and fulfill any unmet pending
This is different from RIPE where this space would go into the soft landing
pool, and extend the amount of time new organizations could get a single
/22 (roughly double that window).
The point here is the free pool being empty is only a snapshot in time, so
I would challenge any argument that suggests we should remove needs based
allocation / assignments once ARIN's free pool depletes.
Certainly, considering a removal of justified need for transfers is a
different argument. Lets try to keep those discussions separate.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > I for one am a supporter of the needs basis. As I have said before, if
> > eliminate the needs basis then I want to be first in line to request
> > that is left. I am sure there will be quite a queue.
> This comment is an example of the strange illogic that somehow permeates
> this debate.
> Eliminating needs basis AFTER there is no free pool doesn't mean that you
> get to request "everything that is left." There is nothing left to request.
> On the other hand, if a free pool still exists, keeping needs basis as a
> criterion could actually mean that one person, whoever is first in line,
> could request "everything that is left" if they could document need for it
> - even if 37 other organizations had the same need.
> Kevin's comments, in other words, seem to support exactly the opposite of
> the position he is upholding.
> > My perception is that the ARIN community is strongly biased to support
> > needs basis and there is a very vocal minority trying to eliminate it so
> > they can create a market they can profit by. I don't read the
> opposition to
> The public interest case for eliminating needs basis is very clear. (I am
> an academic, by the way, not in any way connected to the brokerage or
> secondary market.)
> The feeling is that bureaucratic needs assessments introduce significant
> friction into the transfer process, making it more difficult for addresses
> to shift from people with a surplus to people who actually need them. It is
> the current system that is characterized by hoarding, not a freer market.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML