[arin-ppml] Needs assessment

Heather Schiller heather.skanks at gmail.com
Wed Jun 5 13:38:37 EDT 2013


We aren't talking about trees in a forest and a bunch of furniture
companies here.   The companies you mention weren't selling furniture
because they had a forest -- they ended up with a forest because their
business was doing well.

Having a large number of IP addresses is a side effect of being a large
organization rather than the cause.  In the past, the need for IP addresses
hasn't been something that -on it's own- would materially affect the growth
of a company.  It has always been the other way around -- the company grew
and therefore needed more addresses to keep up with the growth.  The
justified need process wasn't "Dear RIR I would like 10k more IP's so I can
try to get some customers" but rather "Dear RIR I have 10k customers, this
is how fast we are growing, we need more to keep up"

With IPv4 depletion we might see a complete 180.  Lack of IP addresses will
affect companies, they will have to make tough choices and may have
difficulties growing because they can't get resources or those resources
are cost prohibitive.  It's only now that companies with money are in a
better position to buy their way out of depletion.  That significantly
changes the playing field mid game.

I don't believe that this was ever an intended consequence with number
resources.  I strongly believe the intent was to have a sufficient amount
of addresses to meet everyone's need (with careful planning)   IP addresses
were never meant as something to give one organization a competitive
advantage over another.  I think its better this way-- if an RIR hands out
addresses in a consistent manner, according to community developed policy,
and there is enough supply, then organizations can compete on stuff that
actually matters... like price, location, service, reliability.   All this
IP address free market stuff is just crap because no one has to suffer from
IPv4 run out,  if we can just deploy v6.  Instead, we choose to pull our
focus away from that goal and we choose to impose a hardship on ourselves,
all the while hoping it's worse for your competitor.


--Heather




On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> While we are at it, we might want to clarify a few things about the
> general "needs assessment" debate:
>
> * critiques of needs assessment in IPv4 are not directed at IPv6. The
> point, as RIPE's "No need" proposal and others have said, is that once the
> free pool is gone the rationale for conserving via administrative needs
> assessments is largely gone. The market price system can take over the task
> of conservation, as it does for most resources.
>
> * I myself have written a paper demonstrating the impossibility of having
> a market for the initial allocation of IPv6 space. Some form of technical
> criterion for initial IPv6 allocations is unavoidable because we would have
> no idea how to market price the IPv6 space until and unless we occupy most
> of it.
>
> * people who attack the elimination of needs assessments on the grounds
> that "there are bad people out there who want to make money on addresses"
> seem to be missing the point. Nearly all of the organizations applying for
> IP addresses are trying to make money on them in one way or the other. Or
> did you think Google, Amazon and Verizon were charities? [1] Do you not
> understand that IP addresses are part of the service bundle offered by
> ISPs, cloud providers, hosting providers, etc., and that they are being
> "sold"? What is it, exactly, that makes selling a number block as an
> alienable commodity intrinsically evil but selling it bundled with internet
> service worthy and wonderful?
>
> In short, the removal of needs assessments from transfers after a free
> pool is depleted is a minor but important adjustment that we make in the
> dying days of IPv4. Time to relax about it. Dispense with the religion, and
>  focus laser-like on what makes for the most efficient methods of moving
> IPv4 numbers to their most highly valued use, quickly and with minimal
> friction.
>
> [1] Indeed, it seems incongruous to give these incredibly well-resourced
> companies scarce resources for free via the ARIN free pool, but that is
> another debate.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> > Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 11:27 AM
> > To: 'Kevin Kargel'; arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > I for one am a supporter of the needs basis.  As I have said before,
> if we
> > > eliminate the needs basis then I want to be first in line to request
> > everything
> > > 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 that
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130605/457e307c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list