[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors - Revised Problem Statement and Policy Text

[David Farmer]

On 9/14/13 22:58 , Matthew Petach wrote:

> Why not simply use a phrase like "significant fraction" rather than
> "plurality"?

The problem with significant fraction, its overly vague, while plurality 
may not be a commonly use every day word, it does have a precise meaning 
and in this context that is "more than any other RIR's region". 
However, since there are 5 regions the smallest possible plurality would 
be slightly more than 20% within the ARIN region.  However, in most 
cases a plurality will be more than that.

Rather than significant fraction, if the community could agree on a 
percentage say 20%, 25%, or maybe 30%, as a minimum percentage within 
the region that would be a little simpler than plurality, and be 
actually something staff could implement. I do not believe significant 
fraction as the standard would give staff a policy that can be implemented.

> change
>
> " a plurality of resources
> requested from ARIN must be justified by technical infrastructure and
> customers located within the ARIN service region, and any located
> outside the region must be interconnected to the ARIN service region."
>
> to
>
> " a significant fraction of the resources requested from ARIN must be
> justified by technical infrastructure or customers located within the ARIN
> service region, and any located outside the region must be interconnected
> to the ARIN service region."

If we don't like plurality for whatever reason, I'd suggest;

"a minimum of X% of the resources requested from ARIN must be justified 
by technical infrastructure or customers located within the ARIN service 
region, and any located outside the region must be interconnected to the 
ARIN service region."

Where X% is something like 20%, 25%, or 30%.

> (representing a global network that spans 4 RIRs, but has no
> customers, I also advocate changing from "and customers"
> to "or customers", to relieve networks such as the one I work
> for from being unfairly excluded from obtaining ARIN resources.

I'm ok with "technical infrastructure or customers", I've been debating 
between, and, or, and and/or myself.  Are there any objections to 
"technical infrastructure or customers"?

> I will also note for the record that as port density increases,
> the number of devices we use is going down, not up.
>
> They cost a metric shit ton more, and suck up more power
> and need more cooling--but if you're measuring by "number
> of boxes" rather than "capability of boxes", I think the expectation
> that the number of boxes in a network will always be increasing,
> as someone else further down in the thread claimed, is prima
> facie false.

I don't think we want to be measuring the size of the network, at least 
the number of devices used to build the network.  Just that there is a 
network, or portion of a global network, within the region.

> Matt
>
> (for the record, while I'm suggesting alternate language that
> I think might be more palatable, as currently proposed,
> I oppose this proposal)

Do you opposed to the whole approach?  Or, Are there changes to the text 
that would allow you to support the Draft?  Or, is there another 
approach to the problem you would propose?

Thanks

-- 
================================================
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
================================================