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

[Tyler O'Meara]

I figure I'll chime in with my opinion.

The number 1 priority for remaining IPv4 addresses should be to enable the
transition to IPv6. NRPM Section 4.10 already covers this well, and should that
pool of addresses get in danger of being depleted, Section 4.1.7 gives this pool
priority over general purpose use. Therefore, I believe that current policy
adequately covers this highest priority use.

The 2nd highest priority is for critical Internet infrastructure. NRPM Section
4.4 covers this well, and as with 4.10, this pool has replenishment priority
over general purpose use. Again, I think that current policy is sufficient here.

Finally, we get to every other use. Other than the 2 exceptions mentioned above,
I agree with Owen that "any legitimate use of IPv4 addresses is no more or less
worthy than any other". From a policy making perspective, I believe it would be
a grave mistake for us to attempt to determine which uses are more valuable than
others. ARIN is neutral to how receiving organizations use their IP addresses,
and should continue to be so.

This still begs the question of how we should distribute any IPv4 addresses that
we have in excess of the special use pools (4.4 and 4.10). One option would be
to close the waitlist entirely, and just distribute recovered IP addresses into
the special use pools. Given the existence of section 4.1.7 however, I feel that
this would be a waste of IP addresses that could otherwise be used.

We are currently faced with 2 options: Some networks get a "lot" of IP addresses
while the remainder get none, or all networks get a "few" IP addresses. There
are valid arguments for either point of view. In my opinion, a hybrid approach
would be the best option. My proposal is similar to Scott Leibrand's from
earlier in this thread:

Any organization may request to join the waitlist, regardless of the amount of
IP addresses they currently hold. They may request any size block, as long as
they can justify it under the other relevant sections of the NRPM. The waitlist
is sorted by WeightedWaitingTime in descending order. In the event ARIN does not
have a block of sufficient size to fill the next request in line, it is skipped
over until such a block is recovered.

WeightedWaitingTime is calculated as (now - waitlist entry date) /
(Organization's current general purpose IPv4 allocation + requested block size).

In this model, an organization with no resources requesting a /24 will clear the
waitlist twice as fast as an organization that already has a /24 and is
requesting another one, or an organization that has no resources and is
requesting a /23.

Unlike the current waiting list, this encourages organizations to use as few
IPv4 addresses as they can, while still allowing for larger allocations.

Tyler O'Meara
AS53727

On Thu, 2024-02-22 at 17:47 +0000, Denis  Motova wrote:
> 
> Gents,
> 
> Permit me to contribute my perspective once more and express my personal
> stance on the matter, hoping for minimal resistance:
> 
> I firmly believe that the current waiting list process is equitable and just.
> It affords every individual an equal opportunity to procure IPv4 space,
> regardless of their status as existing or new members. It is imperative to
> ensure that IPv4 space remains accessible to all, as inclusivity fosters the
> growth and cohesion of our internet community.
> 
> Regarding the key points of contention in this proposed policy, I offer the
> following considerations:
> 
> 1. A /24 allocation is undeniably inadequate for practical network usage. Even
> a /22 is restrictive, particularly for newcomers or startups operating on
> limited resources.
> 
> 2. The policy should focus on forward-looking strategies rather than
> retroactive measures. Our aim should be to facilitate future growth and
> development, rather than dwelling on past adjustments.
> 
> In my humble opinion, the existing policy framework is adequate. While it may
> be slow, it upholds fairness and takes into account the diverse needs of
> stakeholders. I fail to comprehend the rationale behind implementing changes
> that could potentially exacerbate complexity and exclusivity. While the
> process may be sluggish, it remains fair. Those seeking expedited IPv4
> allocations should explore options through ARIN authorized brokers rather than
> relying solely on the waiting list.
> 
> I trust you share my sentiment that this proposed policy draft does not serve
> the best interests of the internet's future and may yield more harm than good.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Denis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On 22 Feb 2024, at 14:11, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > On Feb 22, 2024, at 07:17, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 22/02/2024 02:14, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > > <clip>
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, YOU made those decisions for YOUR network. Now you are trying to
> > > > force those decisions (specifically deployment of CGNAT) onto others
> > > > through policy. No sale here.
> > > 
> > > No, these decisions are made taking into account the reality of the
> > > things, or do you think it is fine to completely disregard the IPv4
> > > exhaustion and keep assigning scarce IPv4 resources from the waiting list
> > > in total luxury to those who are able to go to the market and transfer
> > > more addresses in other to fulfill their decision to not do CGNAT ? Do you
> > > think there is any fairness on this ? Or even forcing this method to make
> > > the waiting list more difficult to those who need even more as a way to
> > > force - who knows who - to deploy IPv6 ?
> > 
> > 
> > I think each network operator needs to consider the reality as it applies to
> > their network. 
> > 
> > I think that the sooner IPv4 becomes too expensive to deploy on new elements
> > other than v6 transition, the better for everyone. 
> > 
> > As such, the important thing is for the waitlist to be a very slow source of
> > addresses. The easiest way to ensure that is to place as few limitations on
> > who can acquire space from the waitlist. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I cannot agree there is reasonableness in keep allowing organizations who
> > > already have any size of allocation to receive in whatever is left for the
> > > waiting list if they have more conditions to transfer further IPv4 space
> > > should they require. This is the fairness which is sought in the policy
> > > development process.
> > 
> > Then we can agree to disagree and that’s fine. It’s been obvious for a long
> > time that you and I have different perspectives and differing opinions on
> > these matters. 
> > 
> > I cannot agree that it is fair to prevent existing users from having an
> > equal shot at available address space with new entrants and I think
> > reservating IPv4 for “future use” to the detriment of “current need” is
> > wholly unfair. 
> > 
> > Owen
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denis Motova
> 
> 
> 1684 Medina Road  #118
> Medina, OH  44256
>  
> Cell:  +598 096 886 200
> Email: dmotova at brcrude.com
> Website: www.brcrude.com
> Time zone: GMT -3
> 
> 
> image001.png
> 
> 
> DISCLAIMER: This electronic transmission and/or attached document(s) have not
> been verified or authenticated and are not to be considered a solicitation for
> any purpose in any form or content, nor an offer to sell and/or buy securities
> and or properties. Merely describing the details of an existing private
> transaction does not constitute an offer or solicitation of any kind and,
> if presented, is done so as a request for information. Upon receipt of
> these documents you, as the recipient(s), hereby acknowledge this warning and
> disclaimer.  It is important that you do your due diligence on any and all
> commodity offers as we do not warrant any offers that we forward from any
> other source. We make all attempts to verify information and documents as much
> as possible but we can't guarantee authenticity.
> 
> This email and its attachments may contain information that is privileged or
> confidential or legally exempt from disclosure, dissemination, distribution or
> reproduction by anyone other than the intended recipients.  If you are not the
> intended recipient, please immediately notify us and permanently delete the
> original and any copies thereof. 
>  
> This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of
> 1986, Codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1367, 2510-2521, 2701-2710, 3121-3126.
> See http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/glbsub1.htm Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 15
> USC, Subchapter I, Sec. 6801-6809.   This email and the attached related
> documents are never to be considered a solicitation for any purpose in any
> form or content.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.