[arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
Mon Dec 15 13:34:24 EST 2014
I would point out that very clearly, anyone who wanted a /24 got one from Jon, just by requesting one. I was one of the many folks who requested and received a /24. I also requested 4 consecutive /24's (Class C's) for a larger customer and received those as well. I'm also reasonably sure that if I had requested a /8 (Class A) - I would not have gotten one - but I would not have gotten zero resources.
The first word in item #1 below is Fair. I agree we need balance and as I think you know by now I strongly do not think current policy is FAIR at the small end. When big org requests big block they either get a big block or a smaller block. When medium org requests medium block they either get medium block or they get smaller block. When small org requests small block they either get small block or NO BLOCK. This is inherently UNFAIR in my opinion. I see no balance when a small org is discriminated against because they are small and have limited means. Thus Dave and Sue in their garage without the proverbial business plan or whatever to prove their need are shut out - and that is against ARINs Mission.
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:20 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
On Dec 15, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet. When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation. Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.
Note that Jon Postal was instrumental to ARIN's founding and served an ex-officio Trustee at its inception. The policies that were in effect at the time are stated in RFC 2050 (which Jon was one of the
authors) and includes the following text regarding goals -
Internet address space is distributed according to the following
1) Conservation: Fair distribution of globally unique Internet address
space according to the operational needs of the end-users and Internet
Service Providers operating networks using this address space.
Prevention of stockpiling in order to maximize the lifetime of the
Internet address space.
3) Registration: Provision of a public registry documenting address
space allocation and assignment. This is necessary to ensure
uniqueness and to provide information for Internet trouble shooting
at all levels.
All the above goals may sometimes be in conflict with the interests of
individual end-users or Internet service providers. Careful analysis
and judgement is necessary in each individual case to find an
This supports your view that the goal of conservation is not more important than provision of a public registry - the goals must be balanced with one another.
These same principles live on in ARIN's policy development process, <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>, which states:
"Policies for Internet number resource management must be evaluated for soundness against three overarching technical requirements: conservation, aggregation, and registration. ... Policies must achieve a technically sound balance of these requirements, and support for these technical requirements must be documented in the assessment of the policy change."
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet. Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources? How does that advance the Internet? I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.
Whether he would frown is unknowable, but it's unlikely that Jon would be surprised that we were allocating accordingly to operational need.
(He'd probably be more surprised that we had market-based transfers going on, given that RFC 2050 directs reclamation for any unneeded address
> My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen. I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.
As noted above, the guidelines for address management have evolved over time, and even before ARIN have included distribution based on operational need; i.e. your reference to Jon's "loose rules" is probably not correct except in the very earliest days of the Internet. It's probably far more important that the policies used in the management of IP address space are developed by the community per their current requirements and expectations.
President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-PPML