[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks
Andrew Dul
andrew.dul at quark.net
Fri Sep 25 18:17:42 EDT 2015
One might want to be reminded about what happened in the RIPE region
when they allowed organizations to obtain /22 blocks by just opening a
new LIR.
There are lots of threads in the RIPE mailing-list that you can go read
through if you desire. Here is a link to the outcome, a policy that
restricts block flipping.
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01
Yes, a /24 is not a /22, but if you decide that an organization can just
come and get a free block, people will find ways to abuse the system.
This doesn't apply in the ARIN region now, because our free pool is
empty, but still we can see what happens when incentives are misaligned
in resource allocation.
Andrew
On 9/25/2015 1:07 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>
> So explain to me how anyone can corner the market on IPv4 blocks when
> they can only get one /24 per year without going thru your needs
> testing. They have to pay ARIN for them every year so in 3 years they
> can get up to 3 /24’s as long as they are willing to pay for them
> every year they have them. If they stop paying they lose the resources.
>
>
>
> This is a miniscule amount of resources, and I respectfully submit it
> would not appreciably change the availability of resources for anyone.
> It hasn’t in other regions as Elvis pointed out. It would however
> make a big difference to small Organizations and level the playing field.
>
>
>
> We are not far apart conceptually but we are far apart in what
> actually happens.
>
>
>
> /Steven Ryerse/
>
> /President/
>
> /100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338/
>
> /770.656.1460 - Cell/
>
> /770.399.9099- Office/
>
>
>
> Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png℠Eclipse
> Networks, Inc.
>
> ^ Conquering Complex Networks ^℠ ^
>
>
>
> *From:*Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 3:46 PM
> *To:* Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>
> *Cc:* Mike Winters <mwinters at edwardrose.com>; arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating
> needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4
> netblocks
>
>
>
> Your proposal was to allow anyone to get a /24 per year whether they
> needed anything or not.
>
>
>
> I am not opposed to a policy which would allow organizations with
> lesser need to obtain a minimum size block (/24 or /48) if the
> potential for abuse can be adequately addressed.
>
>
>
> By abuse, I mean, for example, the creation of entities with
> minimalist infrastructure strictly for the sake of qualifying for
> addresses.
>
>
>
> I’m all for the local bakery to be able to get a /24 to support their
> 3 cash registers, a router, and a few menu board displays.
>
>
>
> However, I’m not for VPNs-R-US being able to create 1024 entities each
> of which owns an SRX-100 and qualifies for a /24 on that basis.
>
>
>
> I don’t think resource policy should substantially change in a
> post-runout world and nothing said so far gives me any reason to
> believe there is benefit to the community from doing so.
>
>
>
> This isn't about miserly blocking of allocations for future
> theoretical use. This is about trying to make sure that organizations
> with need have the best chance of getting resources they need that we
> can provide. Allowing organizations without need to hoard addresses is
> contrary to that goal.
>
>
>
> Interestingly, we seem to have the same goal but radically different
> opinions on how best to achieve it.
>
>
>
> Owen
>
>
>
> On Sep 25, 2015, at 12:32 , Steven Ryerse
> <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
> <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I would probably agree with your comment that neither of the above
> really helps anyone and probably creates a host of other issues. I
> would probably not advocate them either but they would be more
> fair that the policies in place now.
>
>
>
> Of course the easy fix is to allow Organizations of any size to
> easily get the Minimum size block which I believe is now a /24 and
> that would go a long way towards fixing the problem. I put forth
> just that policy change proposal a while back with a limit of one
> block per year for small organizations and that Policy Proposal
> was summarily dumped by folks with Owen’s views.
>
>
>
> My preference is to allow organizations to more easily get
> resources in this post Run-Out world, rather than to somehow try
> to miserly block allocations in the hope of saving them for some
> unknown future use.
>
>
>
> I appreciate your attempt to be constructive.
>
>
>
> /Steven Ryerse/
>
> /President/
>
> /100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338/
>
> /770.656.1460 - Cell/
>
> /770.399.9099- Office/
>
>
>
> <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>
> ^ Conquering Complex Networks ^℠
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Winters [mailto:mwinters at edwardrose.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 3:03 PM
> *To:* Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
> <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>>
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> *Subject:* RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating
> needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of
> IPv4 netblocks
>
>
>
> That’s an interesting take on the “inequity”…
>
>
>
> However, there is a fundamental flaw with your “inequity”
> situation. If there is not enough addresses for a small
> organization to get them, then nobody would get them.
>
> They will eventually rise to the top just like everyone else, ergo
> no inequity.
>
>
>
> Assuming for a moment your argument is correct and not seriously
> flawed, then arguing that letting people who don’t need addresses
> get addresses is silly since it would only exacerbate the problem.
>
> It seems the best way to “fix this inequity” that you describe
> would be to either:
>
> a) not let larger organizations accept smaller allocations; or
>
> b) make everyone take smaller allocations; or
>
> c) let ARIN allocate smaller blocks (really bad idea); or
>
> d) some crazy combination of the above
>
>
>
> Neither of the above really helps anyone and probably creates a
> host of other issues.
>
> To be clear, I am not advocating any of the above.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Steven Ryerse
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 1:48 PM
> *To:* Owen DeLong
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating
> needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of
> IPv4 netblocks
>
>
>
> Owens comment from below:
>
> “2. To the extent that there is supply, anyone who needs addresses
> can get them already. Needs-based evaluation does not prevent
> those with need from getting addresses… It prevents those without
> need from getting them.”
>
>
>
> Owen’s comment is absolutely false!!!!! It allows large
> organizing who request resources to get what they need or
> something smaller. It allows medium size organizations who
> request resources to get what they need or something smaller. It
> allows small organizations who request resources to get what they
> need or nothing, and there is no other source to get resources if
> ARIN rejects a request, but the open market which Owen and others
> seem to wish did not exist!
>
>
>
> It is time to fix this inequity and removing needs tests would be
> a big help to small organizations who really need resources!
>
>
>
> /Steven Ryerse/
>
> /President/
>
> /100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338/
>
> /770.656.1460 - Cell/
>
> /770.399.9099- Office/
>
>
>
> <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>
> ^ Conquering Complex Networks ^℠
>
>
>
> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Owen DeLong
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 1:24 PM
> *To:* elvis at velea.eu <mailto:elvis at velea.eu>
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating
> needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of
> IPv4 netblocks
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 25, 2015, at 04:42 , Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis at velea.eu
> <mailto:elvis at velea.eu>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 25/09/15 06:46, Richard J. Letts wrote:
>
> b)
> There is no definitive outcome from the policy change,
> which makes me feel that it's not worth changing -- the
> problem statement argument is weak at best.
>
> the outcome is that everyone that will need IP addresses will
> be able to get them. Isn't that quite definitive and clear?
>
>
>
> Sure, except it isn’t actually an outcome of the proposal on many
> levels:
>
>
>
> 1. The proposal does nothing to guarantee a supply of addresses or
> even increase the supply.
>
> 2. To the extent that there is supply, anyone who needs addresses
> can get them already. Needs-based evaluation does not prevent
> those with need from getting addresses… It prevents those without
> need from getting them.
>
> 3. The definitive outcome from the policy change, if there is
> such, is that those without need will now be more easily able to
> acquire addresses, potentially preventing those with need from
> acquiring them.
>
>
>
>
> It is potentially enabling organizations with more money
> than need gain more resources, potentially at the expense
> of non-profit and educational organizations who might not
> be able to raise cash for additional IPv4 space [or
> equipment to support a transition to IPv6].
>
> So, you think that in today's market the
> non-profit/educational organizations will have the chance at
> getting some of the IP space from the market? And if the
> needs-based barrier is removed, they will no longer have that
> chance?
> Everyone knows that the IP address is now an asset and is
> worth a buck. Who do you think will say: I'll give it for free
> to this educational organization (because they have proven the
> need to ARIN) instead of giving it for money to this
> commercial entity (that may or may not have a demonstrated
> need need for it).
>
>
>
> Contrary to your statement, there have been addresses returned to
> ARIN and there have been organizations who chose to transfer
> addresses to those they found worthy rather than maximize the
> monetization of those addresses.
>
>
>
> OTOH, having a policy like this in place certainly makes it easier
> to manipulate the market to maximize the price.
>
>
>
> I think we need to wake up. Keeping needs-based criteria in
> the policy will only cause SOME transfers to be driven
> underground and block some others.
>
>
>
> I think claiming that those of us who believe needs-based criteria
> is still useful are asleep is unwarranted.
>
>
>
> Changing policy just to (potentially) improve the accuracy
> of a database seems not worth the (potential) risk.
>
> The change of the accuracy of the registry is already proven
> in the RIPE region. I would say it's not just potential, it is
> real and visible.
>
>
>
> Please provide the metrics on which you base this assertion. How
> was RIPE-NCC accuracy measured prior to the policy change and to
> what extent was it improved as a result of this policy change.
> What mechanism was used to determine that the measured increase in
> accuracy was the result of the particular policy abandoning
> needs-based evaluation?
>
>
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
> Richard
>
> regards,
> Elvis
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>> on behalf of Dani
> Roisman <droisman at softlayer.com
> <mailto:droisman at softlayer.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 6:20 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating
> needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4
> transfers of IPv4 netblocks
>
> | Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:53:59 -0400
> | From: ARIN <info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net>>
> | To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> | Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9:
> Eliminating needs-based
> | evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers
> of IPv4 netblocks
> | Message-ID: <56031167.1010007 at arin.net
> <mailto:56031167.1010007 at arin.net>>
> | Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> |
> | Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9
> | Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3,
> and 8.4
> | transfers of IPv4 netblocks
> |
> | On 17 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> | "ARIN-prop-223 Eliminating needs-based evaluation for
> Section 8.2, 8.3,
> | and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks" as a Draft Policy.
> |
> | Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9 is below and can be found at:
> | https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_9.html
>
> Greetings,
>
> There has been some stimulating dialog about the merits of
> 2015-9. I'd like to ask that in addition to any overall
> support or lack thereof, you also review the policy
> language and comment specifically on the changes proposed:
> a) For those of you generally in support of this effort,
> are there any refinements to the changes made which you
> think will improve this should these policy changes be
> implemented?
> b) For those of you generally opposed to this effort, are
> there any adjustments to the policy changes which, if
> implemented, would gain your support?
>
> --
> Dani Roisman
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
> experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
> experience any issues.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
> experience any issues.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
> experience any issues.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150925/03ef96b6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150925/03ef96b6/attachment.jpe>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list