[arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy
matthew at matthew.at
Mon May 23 00:16:34 EDT 2016
Yes. a 10 year supply. Totally reasonable, even if one believes their
growth will never increase. And if they believe it is, more like a 4
year supply. Which, given the adoption rate of IPv6 is not at all
unreasonable to plan for.
On 5/22/16 7:43 PM, John Santos wrote:
> A /22 every 2 weeks is 27,000 addresses/year
> A /20 every 2 weeks is 106,000 addresses/year
> A /12 is over 1,000,000 addresses. A 10 year supply of /20's, or 40
> year supply of /22's. Explain again to me why these are equivalent.
> On Sun, 22 May 2016, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> So the world is better off (at least FIB-utilization-wize, and probably
> in dollars expended on lawyers and escrow agents) if I buy one /12 that I
> can't prove a need for under current policy, instead of buying a /20-/22
> every few weeks that does pass the needs test.
> Explain why we have arbitrary "needs testing" again?
> Matthew Kaufman
> (Sent from my iPhone)
>> On May 19, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
>>> On May 19, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
>>> I want community members to understand that this is evidence that the market is a natural conserver of valuable resources.
>> Help me understand what evidence you see that any market has ever conserved expensive FIB slots.
>>> ...and naturally elevates them to a higher and better use.
>> It seems to me that this is the same fallacy upon which inter-provider QoS ran aground. Just because something was valuable and expensive to Party A, and Party A exchanges traffic with Party B, thereâs no reason why the same thing would be valued by Party B, who has their own concerns. Thus, the fact that Party A buys an address block for a lot of money may make routing that address block very important to Party A, but thatâs independent of Party Bâs interest in receiving that routing announcement or wasting a FIB slot on it. Thus, the money has been spent, but nothing has been elevated to a higher or better use; it may in fact not be usable at all, outside the context of needs-based allocation of FIB slots.
>>> Thus reducing the actual importance of these âangels-on-the-heads-of-pinsâ discussions about utilization periods or parsing the application of free pool allocation language in its application to transfers.
>> I agree that thereâs a lot of cruft thatâs built up by people who werenât intent upon using concise language in policy development, and who failed to remove or update language before slathering more over the top of it. However, that in no way invalidates the basic requirement for regulation to defend the commons (global routing table size) against the competing interests of individuals (more smaller prefixes routed).
>> Both are valuable. Theyâre naturally opposed interests. Any useful discussion of either one must be in terms of the trade-off against the other. Youâre discussing only one of the two; only half of an inextricably linked conversation.
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML