[arin-ppml] ARIN 2014-13

[Brett Frankenberger]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 03:57:09PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I can't  help it if you choose to ignore the facts. Your concern has
> been repeatedly debunked by the AC, staff, and other members of the
> list. It simply isn't an accurate or valid concern.
> 
> Anyone that can get a larger block now will still be able to get the
> same size block with the same effort if 2014-13 is implemented.
> 
> All 2014-13 does is make it possible for people to get smaller blocks
> than were previously possible in some cases, enabling organizations
> that previously could not get any size block to now get some block.

I think you're ignoring human nature, and the reality that while poliy
is absolute, actual implementation in practice is not.

>From a pure policy perspective, you (and others who have made the same
claim) are correct.  Under policy today (in the general case), if you
can justify for a /22, you can get one; if you can justify a /24 but
not a /22, you get nothing.  

Under 2014-13, if you can justify a /22, you can get one; if you can
justify a /24 but not a /22, you can get a /24.  So no one loses
anything, and those that can justify a /24 (but not a /22) can get
space from ARIN when previously they couldn't.

However, let's consider a provider whose justification is right on the
border between a /23 and a /22.  Depending on interpretation, it could
go either way.  If you gave the justification to 20 qualified analysts,
10 +/- 2 of then would say "a /23 is justified"; 10 +/- 2 of them would
say "a /22 is justified".  In that case, without 2014-13, the ARIN
analyst whose first reaction to the request is "/23" is likely read it
a few more times and then convince himself a /22 is justified, to avoid
having to completely deny the request.  In a world with 2014-13, the
ARIN analyst whose first reaction to the request is "/23" is likely to
approve only the /23.

The requestor who clearly justifies a /22 is not going to be harmed (or
helped) by this proposal.  The requestor who just barely justifies a
/24 is clearly going to be helped by this proposal.  But the requestors
on the edge might be harmed.

Should there be ambiguous cases that give rise to those sort of risk? 
Perhaps not, but the world is messy, and there will be.  Should ARIN be
resolving corner cases to the low side when the consequences are minor
(requester gets space, just less of it) and to the high side when the
consequences (of resolving to the low side) are more serious (requestor
gets no space)?  Perhaps not.  But if the bias is to work with
customers to get space as long as a way to do the allocation within
policy can be found, it's likely that some of that will happen.

Are these corner cases reason to reject 2014-13.  I don't think so. 
But I also don't think we should pretend they do not exist.

     -- Brett