<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23487">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Hi David,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>All that is being demonstrated by your
research below is that operational need was a principle of allocation of
addresses *from the free pool*.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>And that makes perfect sense to everybody. You had
to have some means to fairly distribute the addresses, and the lightest touch of
the steward would be to just give them away for free to anyone. Of course that
would allow anybody to claim all the addresses, so the lightest workable touch
then became giving them away for free to anyone who needed them. And that's what
we have done, and it has served us well.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>With a transfer market, pricing enforces
conservation with the lightest touch from ARIN stewards. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The whole point here is that RFC2050 is outdated,
right? I agree- it was the product of a mindset which did not conceive of a life
after the free pool exhausts. There is no concept of a transfer market in
RFC-2050, so why draw the inference that the principle of conservation of free
pool addresses should be extended to transfers?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The purpose of a market is to allocate scarce
resources. It does this through pricing the resource. Now that we have
this conservation force working for us, it is our responsibility as stewards to
step back, pat ourselves on the back for a job well done with the free pool
allocations, and concentrate our resources on our primary role as
registrars. This means we do not create or maintain policies that provide
an incentive for transfers to occur which are not booked in Whois, such as
need tests for transfers. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I am opposed to 2013-4.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Mike Burns</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=farmer@umn.edu href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">David Farmer</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=bill@herrin.us
href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">William Herrin</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=arin-ppml@arin.net
href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, June 03, 2013 7:11 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [arin-ppml] Against
2013-4</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>On 6/3/13 15:52 , William Herrin wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:CAP-guGWCmn+wduZ=zotzFiJxcDn5O0vya0nZ=tJdcKXhDGc07A@mail.gmail.com
type="cite"><PRE wrap="">On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:24 PM, John Osmon <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E href="mailto:josmon@rigozsaurus.com>"><josmon@rigozsaurus.com></A> wrote:
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><PRE wrap="">When (say) MIT asked for space, Class B was too small their needs and
Class A was the only larger size available. They didn't request a /8,
they requested a netblock that fit their needs and got a Class A. The
needs assessment at the time was simply different.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap="">Hi John,
Not exactly. IIRC (and the old fogies are free to correct me here) the
predecessor to IPv4 had exactly 256 addresses. When IPv4 was deployed,
each prior user was automatically assigned the /8 corresponding to
their prior address. MIT is one of the organizations which had a
computer using the prior Internet protocol, so they automatically
received a /8</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not really an old fogie, at least I don't
think I am. However, since I work for an organization with significant
Legacy resources, I've done a bit of research looking through the RFCs that
document the earliest IPv4 assignments, including several for my employer.
See, RFCs 790, 820, 870, 900, 923, 943, 960, 990, 997, 1020,
1166. <BR><BR>Comparing <A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc776">RFC
776</A> and <A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc790">RFC 790</A> it is easy
to infer what you say is what happened in MIT's case, and a few others.
However, John is also right, if you demonstrated need you could get a class A,
at least for a some while. This can also be inferred by comparing <A
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc790">RFC 790</A> and <A
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc820">RFC 820</A>, note several class As
were assigned between these two RFCs. Also, along the way through this
series RFCs class As were assigned, <A
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1166">RFC 1166</A> is I think the last RFC
that documented address assignments in an RFC. <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:CAP-guGWCmn+wduZ=zotzFiJxcDn5O0vya0nZ=tJdcKXhDGc07A@mail.gmail.com
type="cite"><PRE wrap="">Very few /8's were assigned after that. Anybody who wanted more than a
class B received multiple class B's, not a class A.</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>Eventually,
yes that was the case, and was definitely the case by the time <A
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1366">RFC 1366</A> was published, However
it was still technically possible to get a class A even then, look at <A
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1366#section-4.1">Section 4.1</A>.
<BR><BR>Finally, as was pointed out earlier, operational need was required for
all assignments. It was noted that even for a class C you had to
estimate how many hosts were going to be connected, initially, and at one, two
and five years. As a thought experiment, what do you think John Postel
would have said, if you answered that question with zero(0), especially for
the one, two and five year parts of the question. Do you think it might
have been "come back later"? <BR><BR>The bar was low, but there was a bar even
for class Cs, and that bar was that you were going to use them in a network,
"operational need"<BR><BR>Therefore, I believe operational need is a principle
that MUST be included. There are valid policy questions of what the
proper measure of operational need for the current times and current protocols
are. I believe the measure of operational need will properly change over
time, and for IPv4 such a time is likely here or upon us very soon. But,
a principle that assignments or allocations are made for operational need is
valid and technically necessary. Equally, we need policies and procedure
that interpret this principle in the light of today's protocols and
operational realities, is also valid and necessary, and the whole point of
documenting operational need as principle.<BR><BR><BR><PRE class=moz-signature cols="72">--
================================================
David Farmer Email: <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">farmer@umn.edu</A>
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================ </PRE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>PPML<BR>You are
receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>the ARIN Public Policy
Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list
subscription at:<BR>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml<BR>Please
contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>