[arin-ppml] ARIN-2023-8 - Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

John Santos john at egh.com
Thu Aug 15 16:32:14 EDT 2024


Sorry, Mike, I meant to send it to the list.  For some reason, Thunderbird only 
displayed a "reply" button and "reply-all" was grayed out.  I glanced at the 
"from:" and thought it was the mailing list; I obviously didn't look at the 
address closely enough!  45 years of email experience and still screwing it up!

I will forward to the list...

Thanks for letting me know.

- John


On 8/15/2024 2:33 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> I understand, you were arguing against Bill's comments/suggestions and not the policy proposal.
> 
> You replied only to me.
> I don't mind if  you place this back on the list if you want.
> 
> What do you think about the proposed policy as written, and the grandfathering options the shepherds offered?
> What about re-justifying if the wait is over two years?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Santos <john at egh.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 2:02 PM
> To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2023-8 - Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation
> 
> Hi Mike (and Bill and everyone else) -
> 
> I wasn't arguing against the policy proposal.  I was arguing against Bill's suggestion that:
>   >      >> I'd like to see a concrete proposal along the lines of releasing
>   >      >> waitlist addresses to the brokers for sale or directly auctioning them
>   >      >> off as they become available.
> and his assertion:
>   >      >> [...] If your need can afford to
>   >      >> wait three years to fulfill it with addresses, how does that not say
>   >      >> everything that needs to be said about its legitimacy?
> by providing a counterexample.
> 
> These quotes are in the email I directly replied to.
> 
> - John
> 
> On 8/15/2024 8:20 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Off list
>>
>> The /22 came from the policy we're discussing. The use case you
>> mention, if they limped along, would be met by the proposed policy.
>> They would still get the /24 you mentioned so it wasn't really an
>> argument against the proposal. I should have said a /23 or /22 but the sentiment is the same.
>>
>> I wasn't clear enough, sorry about that.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:08:47 -0400 *john at egh.com * wrote ----
>>
>>      Where did "/22" come from? I never said they need a /22. I just said they need
>>      routable IPv4, and more than they can reasonably get from an ISP.
>>
>>
>>      On 8/14/2024 5:07 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>>       > Hi John,
>>       >
>>       > Hi John,
>>       >
>>       > I can see the validity of that case, although it begs the question why an
>>      entity that can limp along with a single address needs a /22.
>>       > I concede the waitlist has worked for a long time and it was the best
>>      solution for distributing free pool addresses when they existed in
>>      reasonable quantities.
>>       > Now, with the waitlist times eclipsing justification times, a change is
>>      needed.
>>       >
>>       > Regards,
>>       > Mike
>>       >
>>       > -----Original Message-----
>>       > From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-
>>      bounces at arin.net>> On Behalf Of John Santos
>>       > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 4:32 PM
>>       > To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
>>       > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2023-8 - Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation
>>       >
>>       >
>>       >
>>       > On 8/14/2024 3:58 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>       >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 12:46 AM Gerry E.. George <ggeorge at digisolv.com
>>      <mailto:ggeorge at digisolv.com>> wrote:
>>       >>> As a co-shepherd on policy 2023-8 (Gerry George & Brian Jones) on
>>       >>> Draft Policy ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation, I'm
>>       >>> reaching out for additional feedback from the community on this
>>       >>> policy following the robust discussions at and since ARIN-53.
>>       >>
>>       >> Hi Gerry,
>>       >>
>>       >> The wait list system is not really sane. If your need can afford to
>>       >> wait three years to fulfill it with addresses, how does that not say
>>       >> everything that needs to be said about its legitimacy?
>>       >>
>>       >> I'd like to see a concrete proposal along the lines of releasing
>>       >> waitlist addresses to the brokers for sale or directly auctioning them
>>       >> off as they become available. Maybe the mechanics won't work out, but
>>       >> I'd like to see it and consider whether it's a reasonable idea after
>>       >> the details are ironed out. Since these are returned blocks,
>>       >> auctioning them explicitly would also allow bidders to evaluate their
>>       >> reputation history when making an offer rather than getting stuck with
>>       >> whatever random block comes up.
>>       >>
>>       >> In the interests of fairness to the folks who joined the wait list in
>>       >> good faith, perhaps limit the first few auctions to folks already on
>>       >> the waitlist before opening it up to the public at large.
>>       >>
>>       >> Regards,
>>       >> Bill Herrin
>>       >
>>       > Perhaps the waiter has a use case that can limp along indefinitely using
>>      an ISP-provided static address (with no real protection against it ever
>>      changing) and a massive amount of NAT and RFC 1918 addresses, but it would
>>      be far more effect if they had a real /24 of routable address space no
>>      subject to the whims of their provider. It is working, but far from optimal,
>>      and they are willing to wait a few years on the wait list. On the other
>>      hand, they are a small business or a non-profit or an EDU or otherwise lack
>>      deep pockets so they have to watch their budget. The wait list might not be
>>      perfect, but it is the best solution to their needs.
>>       >
>>       >
>>       >
>>       > --
>>       > John Santos
>>       > Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
>>       > 781-861-0670 ext 539
>>       >
>>       > _______________________________________________
>>       > ARIN-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:
>>       > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <https://
>>      lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
>>       > Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any
>>      issues.
>>       >
>>
>>      --
>>      John Santos
>>      Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
>>      781-861-0670 ext 539
>>
>>
> 
> --
> John Santos
> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
> 781-861-0670 ext 539
> 

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list