[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate - revised

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 15, 2014, at 08:02 , Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> My biggest argument against this is that this encourages abusive squandering of IP space, in order to get more.  Especially for anyone who wants to own as much as possible 'real estate'.
> 
> Ie an operator can use this as a vehicle, say they get a /16.  Their mandate is then to fill it up as fast as possible.  So they 'rent' space to anyone they can, eg affiliate email marketers, or any use that can sneak by being recognized as 'used'.
> 
> Hit 80% aggregate and you get more, rent it out... (it doesn't even matter if it is done profitably, that isn't the goal here)

Can you explain how this is different under current policy?

It seems to me that the issue you describe is unchanged between the current policy and the draft policy considered in this thread.

Do you have suggestions on how this issue could be addressed without making it overly difficult to qualify for address space in general?

> With diminishing IP Space, if there was some way to set standards on what usage qualifies on 80% usage, I could get behind it.

To be clear, the current policy is also 80%. The difference is that current policy requires 80% of your last block and "efficient utilization" of all other blocks (which is vaguely or not at all defined).

The proposed policy is to change that to 80% of all blocks in aggregate.

> But we are already seeing what appears to be this activity amongst hosters ("..get it used, I don't care what for..")
> 
> I know, I can't think of a way to set those standards that the community can get behind, so I am sure ARIN can't ;)
> 
> All I am saying, is that anything that encourages or allows for the larger players to 'land grab' isnt' in the best interests of the community either.

I don't believe this proposal carries significant large-carrier land-grab potential. It does carry some small theoretical land grab capability as mentioned earlier, but when you look at the reality, it doesn't allow a very large amount of space to be obtained by a larger provider. Further, most large providers could probably move a little bit of internal stuff around and make the numbers work to qualify for much larger requests than this would allow under current policy.

> I think that this will encourage the incumbants, at the expense of new entrants, and those looking to 'land grab' more than the existing policies, and thus I am against this policy change.

I think it will have exactly the opposite effect, actually. I think it lowers the barrier for smaller entities and new entrants while keeping roughly the same effective requirements for larger incumbents.

> However, we don't want to disadvantage someone just because they have been successful either.

It is important to keep policy fair and technically sound. I don't believe that this proposal would disadvantage anyone.

> 
> I think we need another idea to come up..

Such as?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are a number of smaller organizations that are really suffering from the current situation and this proposal would be a huge help to them. If you've got an alternative solution, then by all means, let's hear it. Otherwise, I think moving this one forward does more good than harm.

Owen