You've just described pretty much what happens now. This is, to me at least, indistinguishable other than a few subtle operational details from the current needs-basis policy and process(es).
Owen On Jul 15, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> wrote: > If you are publicly traded and your company’s revenues are public then the > size of the company is available to all. This could be used to make sure > only a large organization who might actually have use for it can get a /8 or > other large block size. The other info that could be used is how much > resource does an org have now. If they have a /8 they might really have use > for another /8. If they have a /22 they might really have use for another > /22. Obviously the org with a /22 isn’t likely to have use for a /8. Orgs > with multiple allocations already can add them together including legacy > blocks. An org that has no allocation or one up to a /22 allocation should > be able to qualify for the currently defined minimum sized block which I > believe is currently a /22 . The rare case where an org with a very small or > no current allocation has use for a very large block can be handled as an > exception with more proof required that the block they are requesting – I’m > thinking this would require a manager at ARIN to handle. I’m guessing it is > rare that an org needs to add more than double what they already have > allocated and those can be special cases handled as exceptions with > additional proof required. In this way the blocks allocated are right sized > for the size of the org requesting the allocation. There are some smart > folks in this community who might be able to tweak this idea and make it > better, especially for larger allocations. > > 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 > > <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks℠ > > From: Blake Dunlap [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:01 PM > To: Steven Ryerse > Cc: Matthew Wilder; David Farmer; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - revised > > 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
