Agree 100% -Blake
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Chris Grundemann <[email protected]>wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Steven Ryerse > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree wholeheartedly. I noted in one of Tony's past comments that he > said "Originally, the RIRs were intended to "facilitate distribution", not > be hoarding gatekeepers." We need to get on with facilitating right sized > distributions and stop trying to somehow save IPv4 thru conservation. > > OK, this sounds more and more like a semantics debate at this point. > > Steve and Tony especially seem to be opposed to their own > interpretation of what the word conservation means, rather than the > actual use here in this proposed text. The use of the term > conservation here is to mean "prevention of waste" NOT 'stockpiling in > the free pool.' > > I will point you again to the definition I used earlier: "Conservation > is generally held to include the management of human use of natural > resources for current public benefit and sustainable social and > economic utilization." > > We are talking about managing the Internet number resources (ASN, > IPv4, and IPv6) for public benefit and sustainable utilization. We are > NOT talking about preserving the free pool at any cost. This is > exactly why I feel the need to correct those folks who are trying to > twist this into a free pool issue - it is not. The free pool was a > tool used to support conservation, not the other way around. > > Read the principle statement again: "The principle of conservation > guarantees sustainability of the Internet through efficient > utilization of unique number resources." Where does that sentence say > that we should be "hoarding gatekeepers" or "withholding a resource"? > > $0.02 > ~Chris > > > Steven L Ryerse > > President > > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > > 770.656.1460 - Cell > > 770.399.9099 - Office > > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > > > ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. > > Conquering Complex Networks℠ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Tony Hain > > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 4:13 PM > > To: 'Chris Grundemann'; 'Mike Burns' > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - > revised > > > > I am opposed as written::: > > > > Chris Grundemann wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > I see conservation not as a principle, I mean really the guiding > >> > principle should have been distribution of addresses, not > >> > conservation > > of > >> them. > >> > The goal was to grow the Internet through the dissemination of > > addresses. > >> > Conservation was not the principle, it was the means to prevent the > >> > emptying of the free pool by bad actors. > >> > >> Not true. As I have pointed out in several fora several times before, > >> conservation of the number space is NOT the same as conservation of a > >> free pool of addresses. The principle here is conservation of the > >> number space > > - > >> the whole thing, not one arbitrary slice of it. > >> > > > > Conservation is a tool to implement fairness under the stewardship > principle. It is not in itself a principle, and it is antithetical to the > overall mission of "distribution". > > > > > >> The definition of conservation from the science dictionary may be > >> helpful > > in > >> illustrating what is meant by conservation of Internet > >> numbers: Conservation is generally held to include the management of > >> human use of natural resources for current public benefit and > >> sustainable social and economic utilization. In this case the resource > >> is the unique Internet number spaces (not just free pools). > > > > In common use, conservation is the act of withholding a resource for > consumption at a future date. Rather than debate which definition to use, > why not drop the term altogether? It adds no value, and distracts from the > overall goal of establishing a replacement for 2050. > > > >> > >> > These recent incarnations of this proposal continue to try to > >> > shoehorn conservation as a principle, even to the point of including > >> > conservation inside registration. > >> > I don't think it is either a principal or a goal, for that matter, > >> > just a protective mechanism for free pool addresses. > >> > With the exhaustion of the free pool, conservation has no place in > >> > the > >> NRPM. > >> > Until that time, we don't need to clutter the NRPM with some hoary > >> > language from another era. > >> > >> If I can be so trite as to quote myself: > >> > >> "Understanding that the useful life of IPv4 is far from over (raise > >> your > > hand if > >> you have used IPv4 for a critical communication in the past 24 hours) > > makes it > >> quite easy to see that we still have a need to "maximise the lifetime > >> of > > the > >> public IPv4 address space." > >> > >> In fact, the IANA and RIR free pools have essentially been a buffer > > protecting > >> us from those who would seek to abuse the public IPv4 address space. > >> As long as there was a reserve of IPv4 addresses, perturbations caused > >> by bad actors could be absorbed to a large extent by doling out "new" > >> addresses into the system under the care of more responsible folks. > >> Now that almost > > all > >> of the public IPv4 address space has moved from RIR pools into the > "wild," > >> there is arguably a much greater need to practice conservation. The > >> loss > > of > >> the RIR free pool buffer does not mark the end of "the lifetime of the > > public > >> IPv4 address space" as Tore suggests but rather marks our entry into a > >> new phase of that lifetime where stockpiling and hoarding have become > >> even more dangerous."[1] > > > > I agree with Chris that there is no real distinction between the free > pool and the overall space. Stewardship applies to all. That said, > 'conservation' > > itself is not a useful term when applied to the whole. In particular, > when applied to the IPv4 space the argument that we are protecting for > 'future use' is absurd. Wasting time over how to hoard the last bits is not > moving the Internet forward. As I have pointed out before, ARIN needs to > return 1 /8's worth of IPv4 to IANA as it was acquired under the pretense > of use within 2 years, and as that has not happened, it needs to go back > now so that others may use it. ... Once we get to the point of ARIN without > a free pool, the discussion about policies and principles will align closer > to reality. > > > > Tony > > > > > >> > >> > I am still against the proposal. > >> > >> As is your right. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> ~Chris > >> > >> [1] - http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130523_removing_need_at_ripe/ > >> > >> > Regards, > >> > Mike Burns > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > PPML > >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the > >> > ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > >> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > >> > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > >> > >> -- > >> @ChrisGrundemann > >> http://chrisgrundemann.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PPML > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > >> Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > >> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > > -- > @ChrisGrundemann > http://chrisgrundemann.com > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
