<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3132" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText45473 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Scott,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think of hoarding occurring in two ways.
One would be where an organization, inadvertently or not, requests more address
space than they actually use in the six months or a year. The other case is
where the org would falsify or exaggerate an application to get more than they
need. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>For the second one<SPAN
class=373515916-15082007> to happen</SPAN>, we would have to assume that
ARIN does not perform due diligence during the review of an application. Since I
go through this process several times a year, I can say with confidence, that is
not the case. Also, if an organization is submitting fraudulent applications,
that ARIN is not catching, it wouldn't matter what the timeframe is, since they
would just keep coming back for more. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>There are several ways to throttle this
problem. One is what's currently in place. The one year allowance is for
established organizations who have documented growth. If the organization
doesn't have established growth trends, then ARIN would not approve the
application for the full amount of what is requested. This has also happened to
me on several occasions. :) If for some reason, an org is
allocated too much space,</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2> this
would only be a one-time-shot. If an org didn't grow at the rate it
originally anticipated, it wouldn't be able to make another application until
the current space is used. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>There are also a number of discussions and
proposals around ARIN being able to audit and or reclaim space that is not being
used properly. It's just my opinion, but these are better means to control
hoarding, rather than restricting allocations to legitimate applications of
need.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>I will concede I might be missing something
though. If you can think of ways this proposal could be abused, I would
appreciate the input. I like your suggestion that maybe they should all be six
months. I just figured it would be easier to bring one Registry in line
with the policy of the other four, rather than bring the other four in line with
the one. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dan</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of Scott
Leibrand<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tue 8/14/2007 6:25 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
davids@webmaster.com<BR><B>Cc:</B> ppml@arin.net<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ppml]
Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>David Schwartz wrote:<BR>>> Dan,<BR>>><BR>>> I
think this would've been a good change to make a few years ago, when<BR>>>
we were further away from IPv4 exhaustion. However, I think
this<BR>>> proposal moves us in the wrong direction with regards to
avoiding<BR>>> hoarding as IPv4 free pool exhaustion
nears.<BR>>><BR>>>
-Scott<BR>>> <BR>><BR>> That was precisely my
initial reaction to the proposal. Then I read
this:<BR>><BR>> <BR>>>> Currently, all RIR's provide
organizations with at least a 12 month<BR>>>> supply of IPv4 address
space when making subsequent requests, with the<BR>>>> exception of the
ARIN region. The primary reason for this change is for<BR>>>>
continuity among all RIR. In doing so, all established
organizations<BR>>>> have a more consistent access to IP
resources.<BR>>>> <BR>><BR>> I
think a level playing field is a good thing. But I do agree that it may<BR>>
send the wrong message.<BR>> <BR><BR>Perhaps policy proposals to
change 1-year-supply clauses to<BR>6-month-supply ones would be another way to
level the playing field,<BR>while moving us in the direction we need to go to
deal with IPv4 free<BR>pool
exhaustion...<BR><BR>-Scott<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PPML<BR>You
are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
Policy<BR>Mailing List (PPML@arin.net).<BR>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing
list subscription at:<BR><A
href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml</A>
Please contact the ARIN Member Services<BR>Help Desk at info@arin.net if you
experience any issues.<BR></FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>