[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out (was: Re: Against 2013-4)

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Tue Jun 11 11:01:19 EDT 2013

Mike thanks for agreeing to me responding publicly. Also, I think this 
should be a diffrent thread as well.

On 6/10/13 10:35 , Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi David,
> Sorry for the long delay in this response, but you mention that you
> would support a /12 exclusion for transfers, but when my prop-151
> included that (at your suggestion), you did not support it, but when
> that exclusion was removed and needs tests maintained for all transfers,
> you supported that, and it became policy.
> You were one of the shepherds of my proposal.
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-May/022171.html
> Do you think you would support, today, a policy change which restored
> the /12 exclusion for needs testing transfers?
> Would you support that as a lifetime exclusion, or an annual exclusion?
> I think we are in agreement that sizes under that amount could never
> "corner" a market.

The /12 exclusion wasn't the only criteria I included below, that part 
of your proposal I liked.  I'll note, while I suggested /12, there is no 
magic in that number, other than I think it needs to be at least a /16 
block to make the market functional.  There were issues with your 
proposal as writen, but I think most of them could have been worked out. 
  Some of the ideas in your proposal have been incoporated in to policy 

However, I didn't support you proposal as an AC member at the time, 
mostly because I didn't feal there was community consensus for it at 
that time and it wasn't a timely issue, since there was still a 
signifigant ARIN free pool available.  I'm still not sure the community 
is ready, even now, but as we get closer to ARIN free pool run-out I 
think it is a much more timly issue.

I see myself supporting even more liberal tranfers than we have today. 
But, I will probablly have trouble without some basic requirement to 
demonstrate technical or operational need.  I'm for a much liberal 
definition of what justifies need for IPv4 than we have today.  However, 
I still see some kind of technical requirement that minimally 
demonistrates technical or operational need for the resources, we have 
this for ASNs and IPv6 even though they are both prety much just there 
for the asking, but there is some minimum critera.

I think the more important issue is an appropriate criteria on the 
lower-end and for new enterants, the current slow-start for IPv4 isn't 
going to work, post-ARIN free pool.  Yes, I know eliminating need 
alltogether eliminates that problem, but I'm not sure I can get myself 
all the way there.  I'd like to see some minimal technical criteria that 
entitles someone to be able to buy up to between a /16 and a /12 and 
more than just that they have the money to do so.  Maybe its just as 
simple as demonstrating efficient use of at least a /24.  If you can't 
do that then you can only buy a /24, then you utilize it and you qualify 
for bigger blocks.

The point is that's my opinion, what we need is to develop a community 
consensus.  This require comprimise on both sides.  I think a much 
liberlized defintion of need for IPv4 is possible.  But, when people 
continually call for the elimination of need completely, the majory of 
the community circles the wagons and we get nowhere.  My question to you 
and others, is a signifigantly liberalized defintion of need for IPv4 
good enough?

My suggestion is we keep talking about what such a signifigantly 
liberalized defintion of need for IPv4 looks like.  I think you and I 
have similar ideas probablly not exactly the same, but you and I are not 
enough, we need to develope more consensus around the idea before were 
ready for a proposal.


> -----Original Message----- From: David Farmer
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 1:22 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
>> It is time to halt the current needs based allocations.
> I'll agree the current policy for measuring need has issues, especially
> as we move toward IPv4 free pool exhaustion, but that doesn't mean the
> principle of need is wrong.  If we completely abandon need as a
> principle what principle would you put in place that would help ensure
> fair distribution of IPv6 and ASN resources?
> I believe the real issue is that IPv4 conservation thinking has warp our
> sense of what need really means and should be.  I want to see a meaning
> of need more representative of current IPv6 and ASN policy, or early
> '90s IPv4 polices, and not the hyper conservation need polices we have
> for IPv4 today.
> I agree that the price of IPv4 addresses will be the primary force
> determining need for IPv4 going forward, and at least influence IPv6
> adoption and demand.  However, that doesn't mean that just anyone can
> buy IP address, there needs to be some minimal threshold, like actually
> operating a network, and being responsive to technical and operational
> issues.  Also, personally I believe there should be an upper limit on
> how much address space you can buy without a more detailed
> justification, I've proposed /12 in the past.
> In my opinion "free markets with reasonable governance" have some kind
> of checks and balances placed on the market, and I believe some minimal
> operational need requirement is one of those checks and balances in this
> case.

David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list