[arin-ppml] Equality in address space assignment

[David Huberman]

Jimmy,

Thank you for the well thought out counter argument.  I agree with a lot of what you say.  You've outlined what I think is the primary thinking behind conservation-based allocation practices that ARIN policy has been based on for 18 years now.  

The problem I think I have is the results of those practices.  
1) Lock-in by large providers
2) Conservation itself is a red herring, and has been for more than a decade.  80-90% of the addresses go to 10 companies.  That leaves tens of thousands of networks using just 10-20% of the addresses.  This math has been shown many times on PPML in the past.

Routing table growth is no longer mathematically valid, in my opinion.  We are just under 600,000 routes.   There are only 40,000 ASes or so (right?) in a typical DFZ.  Even a doubling of that would have no discernable effect on routing.  If youre running a catalyst 5xxx, it's time to upgrade.

Finally, I respect the RIPE and APNIC model of addressing:  everyone plays on a level field to start with.  You get a block, and try and grow your business/network.  At ARIN, this "you must be THIS tall" inherently favors the large ISPs and cablecos who dominate ARIN policy making (and have since the beginning), which results in lock-in, etc etc.

Just my opinion.  My original post was made in frustration when large ISPs got to the mic at ARIN35 decrying that removing needs-basis for small transfers was unfair.  Such hypocrisy (especially from those who already bought a /8!!!) is a sore topic for me. I will continue to fight for the little guy, borne of my 10 years working with them every day at ARIN.  The big guys don't need the help.

Thanks for listening,
David

David R Huberman
Principal, Global IP Addressing
Microsoft Corporation

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 4:24 PM
> To: David Huberman
> Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Equality in address space assignment
> 
> 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