[arin-ppml] Updated text for ARIN 2014-16: Section 4.10 Austerity Policy Update
owen at delong.com
Thu Sep 18 18:21:10 EDT 2014
On Sep 18, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> On 2014-09-18 13:37, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I object to section 18.104.22.168.
>> An organization should not be locked out of available space simply
>> because they happened to be unlucky in where they got shoehorned
>> compared to other organizations. If an organization has a /24 and
>> needs another /24, but the adjacent /24 is not available, they should
>> be able to obtain any available /24 in the block. (This holds true for
>> any prefix size from /23 to /28).
>> I would not have a problem with applying 22.214.171.124 or a similar
>> provision to 4.10.1 in place of 126.96.36.199.
> I don't support this suggestion. I believe we need to move on from policies that require renumbering and then returning of blocks. I don't think those really work after the free pool has been depleted, especially since ARIN isn't likely to actually reclaim the smaller blocks that we issued first.
We can agree to disagree. I have no problem with not requiring a return, and if you want to do that, then I would argue you need to get rid of 188.8.131.52 as well. However, if you’re going to have 184.108.40.206, then I wouldn’t oppose applying the same criteria to 4.10.1 as well.
>> I would also prefer to leave 4.10.2 at /10 rather than shrinking it to
>> /11. I realize this means only the IANA returned space becomes
>> available for 4.10.1. I think that is appropriate.
> My reasoning for splitting the /10 was to ensure that the 4.10.1 austerity pool was large enough to serve the ARIN community. Since the block sizes in the austerity pool are larger than the transition pool, the austerity pool needs to be larger to serve more organizations.
The ARIN community needs to realize that IPv4 is essentially over. Continuing to identify new ways to hand out ever smaller crumbs of pseudo-free-pool allocations/assignments is not, IMHO, particularly positive.
Hence my suggestion that only the IANA returned space be managed under 4.10.1
Taking half of what was reserved for transition and handing it back to business as usual is detrimental to the original intent of 4.10 and serves a much smaller fraction of the community.
> At the maximum allocation size, if this draft was to be implemented as currently constructed, this is the total number of organizations that could be served today.
> 8192 organizations (/24s) from a /11 under the transition pool 4.10.2
> 5120 organizations (/22s) from 2 /11s and 1 /12 under the austerity pool 4.10.1
> To me this seems like the right split. This split could be adjusted in the future but at this time we are still setting aside more transition space for more organizations than austerity space.
Again, IMHO, taking away from the ability to get space specifically for transitions to create additional resources for desperate IPv4 preservation tactics does not seem like the right split to me. It seems like yet another attempt to appease those unwilling to embark on the transition process in a meaningful way. Personally, I don’t favor continuing to do so to the detriment of the transition process.
More information about the ARIN-PPML