[arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

[John Curran]

On Dec 19, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:
> ...Pick a number and use it in your routers; the world will not care if it is used somewhere else. The bottom line is that access to the allocated resource requires a routing slot, and you need to justify that. The participants from the large organizations have biased the policies to keep the size of the routing system within the constraints of their budgets, but as far as I am concerned that is as arbitrary as anything else, and getting them to dump IPv4 is even more cost effective.
> 
> To a first order this is where the ARIN/nanog split model is completely broken. The other regions have a more integrated approach to operations and policy discussions, so it is easier to see the balance and trade-offs about how the resources are managed. 

Tony - 
 
   Can you elaborate on how the more integrated approach of other 
   regions has resulted in significantly different results with
   respect to these policy tradeoffs?  To my knowledge, the other
   RIRs are quite similar in the overall outcomes with respect to 
   routing and allocation, i.e. there are minimum allocation sizes 
   which preclude tiny assignments, there are policies for smaller 
   critical infrastructure assignments etc (You can find a comparative 
   policy matrix here if it aids in responding to my question -
   <https://www.nro.net/rir-comparative-policy-overview/rir-comparative-policy-overview-2014-03>)

   There is nothing preventing discussion of routing implications
   of Internet number resource policy at NANOG, other than the 
   interest of the operational community in doing so.  Historically,
   there has been a modest level of interest in such discussions at
   NANOG, and the NANOG Program Committee considers that level of 
   interest when preparing future programs.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN