[arin-ppml] Simple question to simplify the rhetoric..

Jason Schiller jschiller at google.com
Fri Jun 6 17:04:53 EDT 2014


I was asking wrt "all of the above".

So yes, with respect to pre-ARIN IPv4 depletion, post-ARIN IPv4 depletion,
free pool IPv4 address space, IPv4 transfers, IPv6 free pool.

I think what Michael was getting at is can we simply express our views on
the simple binary question.  I think you correctly point out it is not a
simple binary question.

I was attempting to rephrase the question and keep it simple and get at the
essence of the thing people keep arguing about, and come up with a laundry
list of the types of answers (A-F).

Answer A and E are essentially the same pre-ARIN depletion, but diverge
post-ARIN depletion.

In my mind, if one believes needs based is fair for ARIN allocations /
assignments, but is not fair for transfers because simple market factors
are more fair (even per-ARIN depletion) then this fell into the category F "No,
there is a better mechanism that is "more fair" we should switch to that
immediately."

Maybe that is limited thinking on my part.  I have inserted a bucket J
between E and F (because I think that is where it falls in the spectrum).


A. Yes, keep measuring justified need as we always have.

B. Yes, keep measuring justified need as we always have until something
better comes along.

C. Yes, I'm not sure this is the most fair, but it has been the rules of
the game, and doesn't seem right to change the rules so close to the finish
line (especially when people's IPv6 adoption plans are depending on it).

D. Yes, but there is a specific problem that results in some class being
treated unfairly, so a tweak or two is required.

E. Yes, but a needs test only makes sense when addresses can be acquired
unrestricted or with flat or tiered pricing or even per low priced IP
address pricing.  In a limited market, price is the most efficient and most
fair mechanism.

J. Yes, keep measuring justified need as we always have for ARIN
allocations and assignments because this is the most fair mechanism when
there are no market factors in place, but use only market factors for
transfer as this is more fair (but sadly can only work for transfers).

F. No, there is a better mechanism that is "more fair" we should switch to
that immediately.

G. Its not justified need isn't fair, but rather the fact that there are a
class of users whose justified need will not be fulfilled, such as
individuals (not an organization) or organizations that need only a small
amount of addressing (less than a /24 which is the arbitrary limit for
inetr-AS routing to keep tables small).

H. Unrelated... while the current needs based justification is fair, the
process is difficult and the end result favors large organizations, those
who are growing rapidly (and thus repeated ask for space), those with a
dedicated IP management team, those with a dedicated legal team...  The
process (not the policy) is unfair.

My hope was to create a bunch of useful buckets, and see where people
stand.

These are the loose buckets as I see them based on the part of the
conversation I have heard and understood.
Certainly I have missed some.

__Jason


On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 2:41 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>  Jason -
>
>    Are you asking with respect to new issuance from the IPv4 free pool, or
>    with respect to IPv4 transfers, or both?   Some folks might choose a
>    different answer from your list depending on which one you are
> referring.
>
>  Thanks,
> /John
>
>  John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>   On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com> wrote:
>
>  I think the question here is does justified need provide value to the
> community in creating "fairness"?
>
>  A. Yes, keep measuring justified need as we always have.
>
>  B. Yes, keep measuring justified need as we always have until something
> better comes along.
>
>  C. Yes, I'm not sure this is the most fair, but it has been the rules of
> the game, and doesn't seem right to change the rules so close to the finish
> line (especially when people's IPv6 adoption plans are depending on it).
>
>  D. Yes, but there is a specific problem that results in some class being
> treated unfairly, so a tweak or two is required.
>
>  E. Yes, but a needs test only makes sense when addresses can be acquired
> unrestricted or with flat or tiered pricing or even per low priced IP
> address pricing.  In a limited market, price is the most efficient and most
> fair mechanism.
>
>  F. No, there is a better mechanism that is "more fair" we should switch
> to that immediately.
>
>  G. Its not justified need isn't fair, but rather the fact that there are
> a class of users whose justified need will not be fulfilled, such as
> individuals (not an organization) or organizations that need only a small
> amount of addressing (less than a /24 which is the arbitrary limit for
> inetr-AS routing to keep tables small).
>
>  H. Unrelated... while the current needs based justification is fair, the
> process is difficult and the end result favors large organizations, those
> who are growing rapidly (and thus repeated ask for space), those with a
> dedicated IP management team, those with a dedicated legal team...  The
> process (not the policy) is unfair.
>
>  __Jason
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:40 PM, John Von Stein <John at qxccommunications.com
> > wrote:
>
>>  My 2-cents on this thread …
>>
>>
>>
>> Having been in the commodity/derivative/equity trading businesses for 25
>> years before starting an ISP I concur that a Market will likely evolve for
>> US IPv4.  The fundamentals of Supply and Demand for IPv4 will prevail.
>> It’s probably happening already, akin to the “dark pools” of off-exchange
>> trading that were siphoning large amounts of trading volume away from the
>> regulated equity exchanges.  This community, including ARIN, can either
>> embrace and guide this tectonic shift from single source of IP (ARIN) to a
>> Market of IP address suppliers / consumers from the playing field or else
>> be left with absolute control over  essentially an empty bag of allocations
>> and watching the aftermarket activity from the sideline.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> John W. Von Stein
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: cid:sigimg0 at 791f5d9d52446f85c6fed00adec61823]
>>
>>
>>
>> 102 NE 2nd Street
>>
>> Suite 136
>>
>> Boca Raton, FL 33432
>>
>> Office: 561-288-6989
>>
>> www.QxCcommunications.com <http://www.qxccommunications.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
>> addressed.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 1:26 PM
>> To: Michael Peddemors; arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Simple question to simplify the rhetoric..
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course those are not the only two options.
>>
>>
>>
>> We could choose C: Open up the market by removing needs testing along the
>> lines of what RIPE is doing and let the market work that out.
>>
>>
>>
>> We could also D: Embrace and join the private market that has sprung up
>> outside of ARIN and legitimize it and work closely with it at the policy
>> level.  (This has the added benefit of improving the accuracy of the
>> Database.)
>>
>>
>>
>> There are probably other options.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>> <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Michael Peddemors
>>
>> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 11:33 AM
>>
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Simple question to simplify the rhetoric..
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14-06-06 08:21 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 6, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> Why don't we first of all all express our simple votes..
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> A) Leave the current system alone, and let the free market work it
>>
>> >> out
>>
>> >> B) Enpower ARIN with more abilities to 'judge' who gets the remaining
>>
>> >> space
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Michael -
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     In particular, there are the requirements for receiving space from
>> the regional
>>
>> >     free pool versus requirements for being a recipient of a market
>> transfer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Understood of course, however I believe a consensus or even a productive
>> conversation in either case can't be had, unless the community first agrees
>> in principle to a fundamental change in ARIN's role, where it is transfer's
>> or allocation of new IP(s).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> "Catch the Magic of Linux..."
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
>>
>> Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca "LinuxMagic" a
>> Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
>>
>>
>>
>> This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and
>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
>> addressed.
>>
>> Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
>> those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> PPML
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> PPML
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
>  --
>  _______________________________________________________
>  Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
>
>   _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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.
>
>
>


-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140606/1d8b4177/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2999 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140606/1d8b4177/attachment.jpg>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list