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

[Steven Ryerse]

Thanks for that info as that is helpful to me to better understand the real life effect of your position on this policy proposal.  

Would you reconsider your support of 2014-18 if it was changed to leave the current needs tests intact on Minimum allocation requests , but with the understanding that ARIN staff will not request them except when ARIN staff suspects a bad actor or action involved?  As I understand it something along these lines was done when RIPE relaxed their requirements.

Would you reconsider your support if 2014-18 only applied to the orphaned Minimum size blocks that ARIN might have at the time of an allocation request?  In this scenario allocations would only be made if ARIN has an orphaned block available at the time of the request and would prevent larger blocks from being broken up?  

Since you have been doing this for a significant amount of time, is there any other scenario that you might support if it was properly written as a policy?  

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠
             
-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:36 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18: SimplifyingMinimumAllocations and Assignments


On Sep 3, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

> Owen, you act like 2014-18 is a big deal.  Stand back a moment and look at the forest instead of the trees.  Nobody can corner the market on the new Minimum of a /24 once every year.  It would take me 4 years just to get 1024 addresses and I'd have to pay for them so they are not free and of course they are covered by the RSA so I can't really sell them without ARIN being involved.  

I can stand up a bunch of organizations almost overnight for very little money. All I need to do is produce a bunch of DBAs or get really creative with some other form of company or organizational registration.

Each of those organizations would be instantaneously entitled to a /24.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

> There would probably be a short rush of Orgs getting a /24 that they think they need and then it would be over.  The total number of addresses combined would not be that big and some Orgs that are shut out now - who really do need them - will be able to get them and put them to good use which is what ARIN is supposed to foster.  

I guarantee that any rush to get /24s would be short because there aren’t that many left. (less than 50,000 currently).

> This is a little deal in terms of total addresses - why would this be so irresponsible or such bad stewardship.  It seems to me like this would be the opposite and would be good positive stewardship - since it would help ARIN find productive use of the many /24 sized blocks ARIN has that are currently idle.

Um… the entire remaining free pool is less than 50,000 /24s. Beyond that, it also creates incentive to do additional transfers to grab even more /24s. Worse, it creates an incentive to maximally disaggregate those transfers in order to reduce the policy constraints by standing up shell companies.

> I think folks in the community are so caught up in protecting the remaining ipv4 resources from running out and from being acquired by bad actors, that small orgs who just need some small resources are being locked out unnecessarily.  

The implications of this policy in the transfer arena are actually an even greater concern to me than the implications for the free pool. While I think draining the free pool this abruptly is bad stewardship, it would help accelerate IPv6 deployment. However, the problems it is likely to cause in the transfer arena are of tremendous concern to me.

> I would respectfully ask when considering 2014-18, everyone look at the actual total effect of this proposed policy change.  It is small and I get the sense from some of the comments that folks don't realize that it would be small.  

I do not believe it would be as small as you claim for the reasons stated previously and restated above.

Owen