[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18: Simplifying MinimumAllocations and Assignments

Wed Sep 3 21:11:03 EDT 2014

On Sep 3, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Derek Calanchini <derekc at cnets.net> wrote:

> Owen,
> I am such a company (small enough to not be able to get IP's)  You have to realize, tier one providers ARE not giving out ip blocks anymore.  The most you can get is a class C from very few providers....most will only give out around 16 IP’s.

I am well aware. Tier 2 providers, however, often are giving out significant IP space.

The simple reality is that IPv4 is only going to get harder and harder going forward. This has nothing to do with organization size, it’s going to affect everyone. IPv6 is the answer, but I realize it, too, has its own challenges. If you look at the last 5 years of what I’ve been doing (readily searchable on the internet), you’ll see that I am acutely and directly aware of the situation and have been working to help people get beyond IPv4.

> It didn't used to be this way!

We didn’t used to have NAT. The simple fact is that the internet constantly changes. Sometimes not always for the better. IPv4 addresses are scarce. They’re going to get more scarce. This will impact all organizations and it will actually have a bigger impact on larger organizations sooner than smaller ones.

> I can justify 1024 Ip's very easily, but I can't justify 2048 or certainly not 4096.  Were I multi-homed, I could get the 1024 IP's...to me this doesn't make a lot of sense.  It's far less likely for a small organization to be multi-homed, yet the policy is structured for the reverse of that?

Policy that will take effect on or around 9/17 (approximately 2 weeks from now) will only require you to show immediate need to effectively utilize a /24 (≤254 usable addresses), so already adopted policy appears to address your needs. I am the author of that policy, as a matter of fact and the AC worked very hard to adopt that policy very quickly given massive community support.

That policy will completely eliminate the need for multihoming as well, so that problem is also already addressed.

> Anyway, I am just happy the minimum is being lowered.

Given the above facts, do you believe that 2014-18 does anything to help small organizations with legitimate need? It is my opinion that it is a massive invitation to multiple forms of abuse while providing almost no additional relief to legitimate needs.

Owen

> 
> 
> 
>  Best regards,
> 
>    Derek Calanchini
>    Owner
>    Creative Network Solutions
>    Phone: 916-852-2890
>    Fax: 916-852-2899
> 
> "Adopt the metric system!"
> 
> <cnslogo1.bmp>
> On 9/3/2014 10:05 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Steven, many of your statements are patently false.
>> 
>> First of all, the current allocation/assignment process is fair. Everyone is subject to the same policies and it is quite easy for small organizations to obtain IP space under the existing process. I have obtained legitimate assignments for organizations as small as a sole proprietorship with no employees and have obtained allocations for extremely small ISPs.
>> 
>> I have yet to see an organization so small that they could not obtain addresses under current policy because of their size.
>> 
>> Needs testing is not merely a vehicle to save the remaining free pool. If that were true, then we would not have subjected the transfer policies to needs testing. Further, I’m all for distributing the remaining IPv4 free pool to organizations with legitimate need as quickly as possible. I believe that the longer we have an IPv4 free pool at this point, the longer we will have to deal with the pain of this transition process and the longer people will continue to procrastinate the necessary move to IPv6. So if I truly believed that needs testing was really a vehicle to save the free pool, I would be leading the charge to eliminate needs testing. Instead, I’ve remained strongly opposed to eliminating needs basis from ARIN policy and preserved needs basis when I proposed a significant rewrite of the IPv6 allocation policy (which was adopted).
>> 
>> I don’t believe any of Gary’s comments were at all related to organization size, so your retort to his kitchen comment seems non-sequiter.
>> 
>> ARIN2014-18 is an irresponsible attempt to streamline the process of hoarding address space by creating multiple ORG-IDs and I cannot support it as such. ARIN2014-18 would not only affect the remaining free pool (which I doubt will be meaningful by the time any policy now being discussed could be implemented), but would also not only allow, but encourage an irresponsible fragmentation of address space for the purpose of monetary gains through specified transfers. 
>> 
>> Opposition to 2014-18 is not about discriminating against small organizations (anyone who has followed my involvement with ARIN or looks at my voting record would have a very hard time claiming I support such discrimination). While I don’t believe that the policy is intended to do what I have said above, nonetheless, the consequences described are, IMHO, the inevitable result should this policy be adopted and therefore, I oppose the policy as written.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> On Sep 3, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I've been on projects extensively the last month and a half and only now are getting back to this proposal. Gary, I take your comment below to mean that you are not in favor of making the allocation fair to small organizations. I think there has been a consensus building that it is more difficult for a small organization to get an allocation than a larger one, and I don't see anywhere in ARINs Mission that it is OK to discriminate against small organizations. 
>>> 
>>> I would also add that needs testing is really a vehicle to somehow save the remaining ipv4 pool we all know the only way to stop that is to stop allocating altogether which of course isn't ARINs mission. As to your comment about being in the Kitchen I would ask you where in ARINs Mission does it say that it is OK to discriminate based on an  Organizations size. 
>>> 
>>> ARIN 2014-18 is a reasonable attempt to rectify that and I would ask for this communities support. As the Minimum was just reduced to a /24, it is really going to save the remaining ipv4 pool to stop small organizations from getting a /24?  When do we stop rearranging deck chairs on the ipv4 Titanic that can't be saved? 
>>> 
>>> 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] On Behalf Of Gary Buhrmaster
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:59 PM
>>> To: ARIN
>>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18: Simplifying MinimumAllocations and Assignments
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:58 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>>>> On 17 July 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-210 
>>>> Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments" as a Draft Policy.
>>>> 
>>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18 is below and can be found at:
>>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_18.html
>>> Opposed as written.  I believe that continued needs testing is an important criteria for receiving resources, and this proposal would eliminate justified needs testing.
>>> 
>>> As to the costs of doing business, well, while I can understand the those seeking resources may not have properly planned for the costs of their start up and/or expansion, that is a failure of the requesting
>>> organization(s) leaders and their staff, and requesting relief from ARIN policy because of that failure is not an appropriate response.  If it gets too hot in the kitchen, do not be a cook.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>  	
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140903/a29d935f/attachment.htm>