> On Sep 25, 2015, at 13:07 , Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> > wrote: > > So explain to me how anyone can corner the market on IPv4 blocks when they > can only get one /24 per year without going thru your needs testing. They > have to pay ARIN for them every year so in 3 years they can get up to 3 /24’s > as long as they are willing to pay for them every year they have them. If > they stop paying they lose the resources.
I never said your proposal allowed anyone to corner the market. It had no protection for related parties, so it would allow wide-scale abuse by entity creation. Additionally, I am opposed in principle to handing out addresses without need. I’m willing to substantially relax the definition of need and I can see need for a single /24 being “I exist” just as I consider that valid need for a /48. However, once you want an additional /24 or an additional /48, you need to show how you’ve outgrown your existing address space. Note, a second physical location is, IMHO, sufficient for that. I’d support policy that codified things in this way… In fact, I helped write IPv6 policy that comes very close to this notion which is the current IPv6 policy. I wouldn’t be opposed to authorizing IPv4 transfers on a similar basis. > This is a miniscule amount of resources, and I respectfully submit it would > not appreciably change the availability of resources for anyone. It hasn’t in > other regions as Elvis pointed out. It would however make a big difference > to small Organizations and level the playing field. Your policy was never adopted in ANY region, so that claim remains unproven. > We are not far apart conceptually but we are far apart in what actually > happens. I don’t think we are as far apart as you claim. I’ve never encountered a small organization for whom I couldn’t find a legitimate way to justify an ARIN allocation or assignment (whichever was appropriate to the organization). I’ve handled a lot of requests for a lot of very small entities over the years. I’ve always found it more difficult to get a large amount of space for a large organization than to get a small amount of space for a small one. That’s why I have trouble believing your claims that need justification prevents people from getting addresses. Owen > > Steven Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099- Office > > <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks℠ > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 3:46 PM > To: Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> > Cc: Mike Winters <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based > evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks > > Your proposal was to allow anyone to get a /24 per year whether they needed > anything or not. > > I am not opposed to a policy which would allow organizations with lesser need > to obtain a minimum size block (/24 or /48) if the potential for abuse can be > adequately addressed. > > By abuse, I mean, for example, the creation of entities with minimalist > infrastructure strictly for the sake of qualifying for addresses. > > I’m all for the local bakery to be able to get a /24 to support their 3 cash > registers, a router, and a few menu board displays. > > However, I’m not for VPNs-R-US being able to create 1024 entities each of > which owns an SRX-100 and qualifies for a /24 on that basis. > > I don’t think resource policy should substantially change in a post-runout > world and nothing said so far gives me any reason to believe there is benefit > to the community from doing so. > > This isn't about miserly blocking of allocations for future theoretical use. > This is about trying to make sure that organizations with need have the best > chance of getting resources they need that we can provide. Allowing > organizations without need to hoard addresses is contrary to that goal. > > Interestingly, we seem to have the same goal but radically different opinions > on how best to achieve it. > > Owen > > On Sep 25, 2015, at 12:32 , Steven Ryerse <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I would probably agree with your comment that neither of the above really > helps anyone and probably creates a host of other issues. I would probably > not advocate them either but they would be more fair that the policies in > place now. > > Of course the easy fix is to allow Organizations of any size to easily get > the Minimum size block which I believe is now a /24 and that would go a long > way towards fixing the problem. I put forth just that policy change proposal > a while back with a limit of one block per year for small organizations and > that Policy Proposal was summarily dumped by folks with Owen’s views. > > My preference is to allow organizations to more easily get resources in this > post Run-Out world, rather than to somehow try to miserly block allocations > in the hope of saving them for some unknown future use. > > I appreciate your attempt to be constructive. > > Steven Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099- Office > > <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks℠ > > From: Mike Winters [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 3:03 PM > To: Steven Ryerse <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based > evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks > > That’s an interesting take on the “inequity”… > > However, there is a fundamental flaw with your “inequity” situation. If > there is not enough addresses for a small organization to get them, then > nobody would get them. > They will eventually rise to the top just like everyone else, ergo no > inequity. > > Assuming for a moment your argument is correct and not seriously flawed, then > arguing that letting people who don’t need addresses get addresses is silly > since it would only exacerbate the problem. > It seems the best way to “fix this inequity” that you describe would be to > either: > a) not let larger organizations accept smaller allocations; or > b) make everyone take smaller allocations; or > c) let ARIN allocate smaller blocks (really bad idea); or > d) some crazy combination of the above > > Neither of the above really helps anyone and probably creates a host of other > issues. > To be clear, I am not advocating any of the above. > > Mike > > > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Steven Ryerse > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:48 PM > To: Owen DeLong > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based > evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks > > Owens comment from below: > “2. To the extent that there is supply, anyone who needs addresses can get > them already. Needs-based evaluation does not prevent those with need from > getting addresses… It prevents those without need from getting them.” > > Owen’s comment is absolutely false!!!!! It allows large organizing who > request resources to get what they need or something smaller. It allows > medium size organizations who request resources to get what they need or > something smaller. It allows small organizations who request resources to > get what they need or nothing, and there is no other source to get resources > if ARIN rejects a request, but the open market which Owen and others seem to > wish did not exist! > > It is time to fix this inequity and removing needs tests would be a big help > to small organizations who really need resources! > > Steven Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099- Office > > <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks℠ > > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:24 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based > evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks > > > On Sep 25, 2015, at 04:42 , Elvis Daniel Velea <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > On 25/09/15 06:46, Richard J. Letts wrote: > > b) > There is no definitive outcome from the policy change, which makes me feel > that it's not worth changing -- the problem statement argument is weak at > best. > the outcome is that everyone that will need IP addresses will be able to get > them. Isn't that quite definitive and clear? > > Sure, except it isn’t actually an outcome of the proposal on many levels: > > 1. The proposal does nothing to guarantee a supply of addresses or even > increase the supply. > 2. To the extent that there is supply, anyone who needs addresses can get > them already. Needs-based evaluation does not prevent those with need from > getting addresses… It prevents those without need from getting them. > 3. The definitive outcome from the policy change, if there is such, is that > those without need will now be more easily able to acquire addresses, > potentially preventing those with need from acquiring them. > > > > It is potentially enabling organizations with more money than need gain more > resources, potentially at the expense of non-profit and educational > organizations who might not be able to raise cash for additional IPv4 space > [or equipment to support a transition to IPv6]. > So, you think that in today's market the non-profit/educational organizations > will have the chance at getting some of the IP space from the market? And if > the needs-based barrier is removed, they will no longer have that chance? > Everyone knows that the IP address is now an asset and is worth a buck. Who > do you think will say: I'll give it for free to this educational organization > (because they have proven the need to ARIN) instead of giving it for money to > this commercial entity (that may or may not have a demonstrated need need for > it). > > > Contrary to your statement, there have been addresses returned to ARIN and > there have been organizations who chose to transfer addresses to those they > found worthy rather than maximize the monetization of those addresses. > > OTOH, having a policy like this in place certainly makes it easier to > manipulate the market to maximize the price. > > > I think we need to wake up. Keeping needs-based criteria in the policy will > only cause SOME transfers to be driven underground and block some others. > > I think claiming that those of us who believe needs-based criteria is still > useful are asleep is unwarranted. > > > Changing policy just to (potentially) improve the accuracy of a database > seems not worth the (potential) risk. > The change of the accuracy of the registry is already proven in the RIPE > region. I would say it's not just potential, it is real and visible. > > Please provide the metrics on which you base this assertion. How was RIPE-NCC > accuracy measured prior to the policy change and to what extent was it > improved as a result of this policy change. What mechanism was used to > determine that the measured increase in accuracy was the result of the > particular policy abandoning needs-based evaluation? > > Owen > > > > Richard > regards, > Elvis > > > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of > Dani Roisman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 6:20 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based > evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks > > | Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:53:59 -0400 > | From: ARIN <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > | To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > | Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based > | evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks > | Message-ID: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > | Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > | > | Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9 > | Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 > | transfers of IPv4 netblocks > | > | On 17 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > | "ARIN-prop-223 Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, > | and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks" as a Draft Policy. > | > | Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9 is below and can be found at: > | https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_9.html > <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_9.html> > > Greetings, > > There has been some stimulating dialog about the merits of 2015-9. I'd like > to ask that in addition to any overall support or lack thereof, you also > review the policy language and comment specifically on the changes proposed: > a) For those of you generally in support of this effort, are there any > refinements to the changes made which you think will improve this should > these policy changes be implemented? > b) For those of you generally opposed to this effort, are there any > adjustments to the policy changes which, if implemented, would gain your > support? > > -- > Dani Roisman > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[email protected]>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[email protected]>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[email protected]>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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.
