[arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation
Fernando Frediani
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Wed Feb 21 07:13:41 EST 2024
Hi
This rather seems to be a vague assumption as you didn't provide
anything substantial for it to be a blocker to have a policy adjusted in
order to contemplate only new entrants.
Why is it bad ? Do you think it is still rational to keep supplying IP
addresses to those who already have some in detriment to those who have
nothing ?
This is not unenforceable and just a supposition unsupported by real
data. ARIN has means to develop ways to check these newer organizations
and separate the possible fraudsters from the legit ones. Just before
there it serves to inhibit a lot of organization to even request IPs
under the waitlist making it much cleaner and fair. LACNIC has been
doing it for years and it has proven to be successful in terms of
fairness and possibility to check these organization requests correctly.
Are we going to avoid having a policy which is the right thing to do
just on the supposition that there will be fraud ?
Fernando
On 21/02/2024 04:13, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> Anyone using IP to conduct business should recognize that IPv4 is out
> and they’ll need IPv6 to do business going forward.
>
> I oppose Fernando’s idea that the waitlist should be limited to new
> entrants. In addition to being bad policy, this is completely
> unenforceable and only leads to widespread workarounds (which are
> morally equivalent to fraud but probably don’t quite fit the legal
> definition of the term). (The cost to spin up an organization to
> acquire resources and then acquire the organization is trivial
> compared to the value of the IPv4 resources obtained).
>
> Owen
>
>> On Feb 20, 2024, at 19:28, Denis Motova <dmotova at brcrude.com> wrote:
>>
>> Owen:
>>
>> I appreciate your thoughtful and constructive suggestion.
>>
>> There are a couple of factors at play here that I'd like to address
>> directly, if possible:
>>
>> Regarding the Existing Waiting List - I'm uncertain about the
>> rationale behind altering the current waiting list and applying new
>> criteria to members who have already been approved. I believe any new
>> policy should not retroactively affect those who have already
>> undergone approval. Approved members should continue to receive the
>> resources they were initially granted based on their justification
>> until such point as new users are added under the new policy (after
>> its approval) and its updated distribution methods are implemented.
>>
>> As for the New Policy for Future Applicants - Future applicants may
>> be required to select from a /22, /23, or /24 allocation, with the
>> decision weighted based on the considerations Owen has mentioned
>> regarding the allocation of new resources.
>>
>> I support the sentiments expressed by Fernando Frediani; there should
>> be a reasonable approach that balances the need to avoid impacting
>> the size of routing tables while still providing users with the
>> flexibility they require to conduct business rather than treating IPs
>> as a hobby.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Denis
>>
>>
>>> On 20 Feb 2024, at 21:53, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> How about this:
>>>
>>> Each waitlist recipient specifies a desired block size and a minimum
>>> acceptable block size. Wait list recipients can change their minimum
>>> acceptable block size at any time so long as it is no shorter than
>>> their originally approved block size.
>>>
>>> When ARIN receives a block to fulfill a waitlist request, the first
>>> waitlister in line with a minimum acceptable block size ≥ the
>>> available block size gets it.
>>>
>>> In other words, let’s say we have the following waitlist:
>>>
>>> PartyApprovedMinimum acceptable
>>> A/23/23
>>> B/22/23
>>> C/22/24
>>> D/24/24
>>> E/22/23
>>> F/22/24
>>>
>>>
>>> Let’s say ARIN receives a /24. The first /24 would go to party C.
>>> If ARIN then received another /24, it would go to party D.
>>> If ARIN then received a /22, Parties A and B would receive a /23 each.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 16, 2024, at 17:01, Denis Motova <dmotova at brcrude.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Scott,
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate the innovative perspective and thorough thought
>>>> process you've articulated in your email.
>>>>
>>>> There are a couple of points I'd like to highlight:
>>>>
>>>> The new policy shouldn’t be retroactive, it should be only a policy
>>>> going forward. I mention it only because I think it’s important to
>>>> make that distinction clear.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, I find your proposed approach in the second paragraph
>>>> intriguing. It's far more nuanced than simply restricting everyone
>>>> to a maximum of a /24. I believe you're onto something promising
>>>> here, and it could serve as a sensible strategy moving forward.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the issue of "time," it's important to acknowledge the
>>>> existence of a secondary market for IPs. If there's significant
>>>> pressure, purchasing IPs should be considered a viable option
>>>> rather than solely relying on expedited access through the waiting
>>>> list. Maintaining a balance is key; those with urgent needs can
>>>> acquire IPs through purchase, while others can join the waiting
>>>> list and adhere to the traditional process. Personally, I believe
>>>> this approach strikes a fair and equitable balance.
>>>>
>>>> -Denis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 16 Feb 2024, at 21:14, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The point isn't to "improve the visual appearance of the waiting
>>>>> list numbers". Everyone knows the free pool is empty except for
>>>>> the reclaimed dregs, and we're deciding who should get how much of
>>>>> the dregs. The point of this proposal, limiting the maximum
>>>>> allocation to /24, is to allocate smaller netblocks to
>>>>> organizations that have been waiting a shorter amount of time,
>>>>> instead of making everyone wait longer while those with a
>>>>> non-time-sensitive justification for a larger block can get one
>>>>> and those who only need a smaller block wait in line longer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another alternative to limiting everyone to a /24 would be to
>>>>> prioritize the waitlist such that everyone's place in line is
>>>>> determined by how long they've been waiting divided by how many
>>>>> /24s they're requesting. So at any given time, we might be
>>>>> fulfilling /24 requests that have been waiting 6 months, /23
>>>>> requests that have been waiting a year, and /22 requests that have
>>>>> been waiting 2 years. (Or 1, 2, and 4 years, respectively.) That
>>>>> way no one is penalized for accepting a smaller block, and an
>>>>> organization who can usefully use a /24 now and a /24 later gets a
>>>>> /23 worth of space in the same amount of time as someone holding
>>>>> out for a contiguous /23.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 12:56 PM Denis Motova
>>>>> <dmotova at brcrude.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear William,
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate your message and your input.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have some reservations about agreeing with the statement you
>>>>> made, and I'll explain my reasoning below:
>>>>>
>>>>> I strongly believe that there are numerous legitimate
>>>>> businesses currently on the waiting list seeking IP space
>>>>> allocations of /22, /23, and /24. By removing the option for
>>>>> these allocations, we essentially transform the waiting list
>>>>> into what you described in a previous post as catering to
>>>>> "hobbyists and speculators." It's unlikely that any serious
>>>>> company would require only 256 IPs within a network; that's
>>>>> essentially a micro-network.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you are aware, there are multiple avenues for obtaining IP
>>>>> space, including the waiting list and authorized purchase
>>>>> methods. From my perspective, if a business urgently needs IP
>>>>> space, they would likely follow the example of AWS and invest
>>>>> in acquiring the necessary resources rather than wait through
>>>>> the waiting list.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, one of our customers acquired a /17 by
>>>>> purchasing it from the market after providing justifications
>>>>> to ARIN for the IP space. While this involved a significant
>>>>> financial investment, it demonstrated the seriousness of their
>>>>> business needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I fail to see the value in limiting everyone's network size
>>>>> solely to improve the visual appearance of the waiting list
>>>>> numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you once again for your collaborative spirit and feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> Denis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16 Feb 2024, at 15:52, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 8:52 AM Denis Motova
>>>>>> <dmotova at brcrude.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> A. Decreasing the allocation to a /24 means that new allocation
>>>>>>> holders would receive a minuscule network, hardly sufficient for
>>>>>>> small to mid-sized deployments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Denis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At this point, the wait list is for hobbyists and
>>>>>> speculators: people
>>>>>> who can afford to wait, which a serious business cannot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell me I'm wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Bill Herrin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> William Herrin
>>>>>> bill at herrin.us
>>>>>> https://bill.herrin.us/
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ARIN-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:
>>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20240221/575f42d2/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list