Exactly how is this "right sized allocation" based on network size different than needs basis allocation?
-Blake On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Steven Ryerse < [email protected]> wrote: > Note that I did say "right sized allocations" and have said multiple times > that it is fine to match allocations with the size of the organization > and/or the size of the organization's current network. I also have stated > that we need to be good technical stewards and I think most folks here > agree with that. I do not think a small organization like ours for example > should ever get the technical equivalent of a /8 or even close to it. I do > strongly think that every organization should be able to get a right sized > allocation if they are going to use it as that grows the Internet - which > in case folks forget is ARIN's mission. > > 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: Matthew Wilder [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 12:18 PM > To: Steven Ryerse; David Farmer > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - revised > > In that case, I would like to request a /8 of IPv6 space. That seems > right to me since conservation isn't a concern anymore. > > To be clear, IP Address schemes can only be updated so far. As far as I > can tell IPv4 address schemes have never extended beyond the initial 32 > bits they started off with, and IPv6 also will not change from a 128 bit > address length. Granted, CIDR was introduced to IPv4 to extend the > timeline for exhaust of IPv4 address resources, but this is exceptional, > and not the rule (certainly for the future). > > And the cost you mention is not a negligible one. Think of the amount of > time and energy that has already gone into IPv6 only to approach 2% of > global IP traffic on IPv6. I believe it is in the community's best > interest to conserve the word conservation in some form. As David said, > the conservation of IPv6 resources is going to be much different than > conservation of IPv4 resources. > > By the way, for those not following, there is a push from many member > nations of the ITU and others in the international community to > redistribute the governance of the internet in their interests. Do not be > surprised if the nations gain the ability to allocate IP Address resources > to the entities within their borders. In that world, IPv6 exhaust is only > a short matter of time. If we can at least embed the concept of > conservation of IPv6 resources now in some way, the global community will > thank us a generation or two from now. > > mw > > On July 12, 2013 at 08:50 AM, "Steven Ryerse" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I disagree. Unlike say land which they aren't making more of, address > schemes can alway be updated like IPv4 to IPv6. When IPv6 runs out we'll > switch to IPv8 or whatever (albeit at a cost) or something better than IP. > Thus we don't need to conserve at all - we just need to do right sized > allocations so we don't have to pay the additional cost to switch sooner > than we have to. Nothing like ipv4 or ipv6 or asn numbers need to somehow > be conserved for a rainy day if there are folks that want to use them. > > > > Bill is right that the word conserve needs to be removed. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jul 11, 2013, at 7:59 PM, "David Farmer" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I really don't understand this debate on Conservation. :{ > > > > > > There are some that seem to be claim that conservation is irrelevant > with IPv4 free pool run-out. > > > > > > I say so what! We still have IPv6 and ASNs to worry about, and while > both resource pools are GARGANTUAN by comparison, they are not infinite. > Therefore some concept of conservation remains necessary, obviously not > the same concept that we have had in IPv4 for the last 20 years or so. > But, completely eliminating conservation as a concept, principle, or goal, > of how we manage Internet number resources, seems like the proverbial > "throwing the baby out with the bath water." > > > > > > Then others are not willing to concede that anything changes with IPv4 > run-out. > > > > > > I'll can say I really hope something changes, the focus on > conservation that became necessary in the late '90s for IPv4, has nearly > lead to the abandonment of other principles like the end-to-end model, open > availability of resources (anyone building a network should be able to get > unique addresses), etc... > > > > > > So how do we move forward? I suggest; > > > > > > 1. Can everyone concede that going forward, conservation is much less > important, but that the need for some concept of conservation doesn't > completely go away either. > > > > > > 2. Lets focus the conversation on other issues for a while, let this > cool down a little, then come back to it after we've cooled down and maybe > have resolved some of the other issues. > > > > > > 3. Are there other concepts, principles, or goals that were missing? > > > I suggested earlier that there were additional principles we should > > > be looking at. An candidates has come up in the conversation today > > > that I would like to propose; > > > > > > 0.2 Fair Distribution > > > > > > The principle of Fair Distribution is the precept that the > > > fundamental purpose of Internet number resources management is to > > > distributed unique number resources in a fair and impartial manner > > > to entities building and operating networks, for benefit of all > > > Internet users equally, and thereby facilitating the growth and > > > sustainability of the Internet. > > > > > > I'd make this #2 behind Registration, and I'd suggest Conservation > could follow and ties into this principle through the concepts of > "fairness" and "sustainability" > > > > > > Thanks > > > -- > > > ================================================ > > > David Farmer Email: [email protected] > > > 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 > > > ================================================ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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.
