[arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

Steven Ryerse SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
Fri Dec 19 16:24:37 EST 2014

You bring up an excellent point about policies changing.  Maybe things would improve for everyone if the folks in this community who help set polices, have those same policies applied to everyone including them - for both new allocations AND renewal of ALL allocations.  

Then every year the folks who have resources would have to go thru the needs testing again to make sure they are actually using the resources per the then current policy.  I suspect some of the needs testing policies would change pretty fast if all renewal requests had to comply just like new requests.  

What's good for the goose is good for the gander!  

Steven L Ryerse
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:48 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 05:15:46PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:

> .com permutations is limited too.

Yes, and my mail pointed out how.

> IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are both just Internet resources 
> that Internet users need to use the Internet.

They're different kinds of resources, though.  Protocol parameters are also just Internet resources, but there are different policies for how you get a DNS RRTYPE number, a UDP or TCP port number, and so on; and these policies are different to how one gets an IP address or a domain name.  Saying, "Just resources, therefore they should have the same policy," effectively claims that there are no differences between these kinds of resources; I claim that's false.

> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of any 
> policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.
> If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK 
> to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?

The argument for the minimum allocation policy is not "size of org", but "amount of use given the allocation and minimum allocation size given the Internet routing system".  I don't have any trouble imagining that a name registry approaching identifier exhaustion could adopt a policy that domain names in the registry would be required to be used (or the registration would be revoked).  In fact, some name registries do have separate allocation policies for "reservation" and "registration".  Xxx does this, for instance (a very effective revenue-plumping move, I am told).  Of course, the differences between naming and numbering probably mean that such a restriction in the name case would be silly except in particular cases (like xxx).  And that's sort of the point: the analogy isn't doing the work you want here, because the differences between names and numbers means that policy for one of them is not good in the other case.  For example, number resources can't be handed out one at a time for the sake of the routing system, but domain names are _always_ allocated that way.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list