[arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

Tony Hain alh-ietf at tndh.net
Fri Dec 19 17:40:50 EST 2014


As another small org, I agree with you completely about the absurdly arbitrary nature of the policies that are biased in favor of the large organizations. I also advocate that ARIN should allocate all of their remaining IPv4 pool immediately, with the only requirement being that someone asks. They can have as many addresses as the number of independent web forms they fill out, but every allocation MUST be done as a /32 and processed in order of request so the potential for aggregation is limited.

Like it or not, IPv4 allocations have always been needs based. Despite all the crap you might read about pre-RIR allocations being done with wild abandon, as one of the handful of people that actually did the needs assessments before the RIR system was created, I personally turned down requests for large blocks when smaller ones would serve the need, and recommended larger blocks than requested in some cases.  At the same time, no matter how much noise the ARIN community makes about "we don't talk about routing", this allocation needs assessment has always been about routing slots, because the only real reason you "NEED" an address is to have it routed. Otherwise it is just a number and who cares if it is registered publicly that you requested it. 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. 

Seriously, I believe ARIN should get out of the IPv4 business NOW... The world should have moved on 10 years ago so this death-spiral runout tail BS would have never happened, but here we are. The only sane way to get past the never-ending policy tweaking is to hand the remaining IPv4 resource back to IANA and let the other RIRs deal with it. If a small org is having a problem getting IPv6 resources, I care and want to help fix that. If they believe they need more than a single IPv4 to support the dwindling number of XP machines that have IPv6 turned off by default, they are in need of an education, and probably some guidance on how to build and deploy IPv6 enabled apps and infrastructure. 

Full disclosure: Some of us on this list happen to be in the business of helping small orgs with IPv6 awareness & migration. 

Hain Global Consulting, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:28 PM
> To: 'Owen DeLong'
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> But you ignore the reality of life in a small Org that has limited resources.
> They are spending all their time just trying to keep their doors open and
> don't have the extra time to participate even if they want to.  I think this
> community is certainly capable of doing their fiduciary responsibility by
> making sure the needs of small Orgs are met just like is done for larger Orgs.
> I do see this community doing some of that but I think more needs to be
> done.
> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 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: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:47 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Gary Buhrmaster; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> It's always fun when people depend on nameless faceless silent majorities to
> bolster their argument.
> Bottom line, in this as in all things, decisions are made by those who show up.
> If the members of the community who do not comment and/or only hold
> legacy allocations continue to not speak up, then it is impossible for us to
> consider their support based solely on your belief that it exists.
> If you truly believe this to be the case, then rally them to come out and
> support what you want. I assure you that if they do, policy will change based
> on consensus of the expanded body of participation. However, we can only
> operate on the consensus of those who voice an opinion. It is impossible to
> count support or opposition from those who do not voice it.
> This is true in any deliberative body and in any policy process of which I am
> aware. There is simply no viable or accurate way to measure the opinions of
> those who choose not to voice an opinion.
> Owen
> > On Dec 18, 2014, at 09:27 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-
> networks.com> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe a majority of the vocal community does, but I doubt if you add in all
> members of the community who do not comment and all the members of
> the community that only hold legacy allocations, I suspect that might not be
> the case.  I think the legacy community is speaking volumes by not
> participating by commenting in this forum.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Steven Ryerse
> > President
> > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> > 770.656.1460 - Cell
> > 770.399.9099- Office
> >
> > ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
> >                     Conquering Complex Networks℠
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gary Buhrmaster [mailto:gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:12 PM
> > To: Steven Ryerse
> > Cc: Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-
> networks.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.
> What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum
> allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN
> was chartered were denied because of needs policy.
> >>
> >> I don’t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn’t
> have happened!  ARIN’s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.
> >
> > While there is clearly support by some for your position advocating
> needless number allocations, the majority of the community supports a
> review to insure that the allocations are actually advancing the Internet, and
> not just throwing numbers around to whomever asks, whatever their plans
> (or lack thereof).
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list