On Jul 15, 2014, at 08:02 , Michael Peddemors <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> My biggest argument against this is that this encourages abusive squandering
> of IP space, in order to get more. Especially for anyone who wants to own as
> much as possible 'real estate'.
>
> Ie an operator can use this as a vehicle, say they get a /16. Their mandate
> is then to fill it up as fast as possible. So they 'rent' space to anyone
> they can, eg affiliate email marketers, or any use that can sneak by being
> recognized as 'used'.
>
> Hit 80% aggregate and you get more, rent it out... (it doesn't even matter if
> it is done profitably, that isn't the goal here)
Can you explain how this is different under current policy?
It seems to me that the issue you describe is unchanged between the current
policy and the draft policy considered in this thread.
Do you have suggestions on how this issue could be addressed without making it
overly difficult to qualify for address space in general?
> With diminishing IP Space, if there was some way to set standards on what
> usage qualifies on 80% usage, I could get behind it.
To be clear, the current policy is also 80%. The difference is that current
policy requires 80% of your last block and "efficient utilization" of all other
blocks (which is vaguely or not at all defined).
The proposed policy is to change that to 80% of all blocks in aggregate.
> But we are already seeing what appears to be this activity amongst hosters
> ("..get it used, I don't care what for..")
>
> I know, I can't think of a way to set those standards that the community can
> get behind, so I am sure ARIN can't ;)
>
> All I am saying, is that anything that encourages or allows for the larger
> players to 'land grab' isnt' in the best interests of the community either.
I don't believe this proposal carries significant large-carrier land-grab
potential. It does carry some small theoretical land grab capability as
mentioned earlier, but when you look at the reality, it doesn't allow a very
large amount of space to be obtained by a larger provider. Further, most large
providers could probably move a little bit of internal stuff around and make
the numbers work to qualify for much larger requests than this would allow
under current policy.
> I think that this will encourage the incumbants, at the expense of new
> entrants, and those looking to 'land grab' more than the existing policies,
> and thus I am against this policy change.
I think it will have exactly the opposite effect, actually. I think it lowers
the barrier for smaller entities and new entrants while keeping roughly the
same effective requirements for larger incumbents.
> However, we don't want to disadvantage someone just because they have been
> successful either.
It is important to keep policy fair and technically sound. I don't believe that
this proposal would disadvantage anyone.
>
> I think we need another idea to come up..
Such as?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are a number of smaller
organizations that are really suffering from the current situation and this
proposal would be a huge help to them. If you've got an alternative solution,
then by all means, let's hear it. Otherwise, I think moving this one forward
does more good than harm.
Owen
_______________________________________________
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.
