[arin-ppml] Equality in address space assignment

[Jimmy Hess]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:34 PM, David Huberman
<David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:

> How is RIPE and APNIC’s policy unfair, but ARIN’s policy of “you must be
> THIS large a network to participate” fair?
> What is the technical basis for not allowing small networks to get PI space?

It's unfair, because non first time requestors have to hold resources, And
they have to show efficient utilization of existing resources.

"All first time requestors can get a /24"   is essentially saying....

"We don't care if you waste 253  IP addresses, because your network
design only required a /29."


Doesn't require a technical basis.   It is undesirable for any
networks to have PI
space,  as it grows the routing tables, but

This is a good non-technical resource management choice.  It makes
sense to require small
networks with no direct allocation yet to meet criteria to show that they have
reached a size milestone of proven business and  growth projections with
sufficient confidence to show that  the allocation of a /24   is needed,
and absolutely necessary  to meet  short term or immediate  needs.

Consider that there are many more small networks than large ones.
There are many very small networks which might  have a proven case for
10 IP addresses and a claim to need 200  "soon".

It makes no sense that they can get a /24 for ARIN, and then stop
growing, and hold onto
that entire /24 forever;    As long as the  small organization exists,
 the allocation of the /24
is an irrevocable choice,   with no incentive for the small org.  to renumber
back to PA space and release unnecessary resources.

On the other hand,  if the small  org obtains a  /24  of PA space instead,  or
a  /28 of PA space,  Either less IP space will be wasted by the small network,
Or   the ISP holding the  PA block   can    reclaim addresses at a later date.

Furthermore,  for the larger networks,  there should be a small number of those,
so there is less possible waste.

It would also be much better for the public for these resources to go to an ISP
as PA space, where the /24 could be divided up more fairly according to
actual need;  with fewer global routing table entries.

Operators already managing large PA  address space  are also more likely to
have mature organizational frameworks to ensure the right internal address
management practices are in place  to avoid wasting or unnecessarily utilizing
scarce IPs.

To the  50000 or so  would-be  first time requestors who might like a /24;
if there was no previous resource requirement....
they might very well wind up wasting  75% of their allocation  by only using
25% of the IPs.


> Decades of RIPE and APNIC policy didn’t break the internet.

Non Sequitur.
Decades of ARIN policy didn't break the internet, either.


> David
--
-JH