[arin-ppml] Equality in address space assignment

[Bruce Cornett]

Agreed.

On 04/15/2015 12:00 PM, David Huberman wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>