Owen: I appreciate your thoughtful and constructive suggestion.
There are a couple of factors at play here that I'd like to address directly, if possible: Regarding the Existing Waiting List - I'm uncertain about the rationale behind altering the current waiting list and applying new criteria to members who have already been approved. I believe any new policy should not retroactively affect those who have already undergone approval. Approved members should continue to receive the resources they were initially granted based on their justification until such point as new users are added under the new policy (after its approval) and its updated distribution methods are implemented. As for the New Policy for Future Applicants - Future applicants may be required to select from a /22, /23, or /24 allocation, with the decision weighted based on the considerations Owen has mentioned regarding the allocation of new resources. I support the sentiments expressed by Fernando Frediani; there should be a reasonable approach that balances the need to avoid impacting the size of routing tables while still providing users with the flexibility they require to conduct business rather than treating IPs as a hobby. Thanks again, Denis On 20 Feb 2024, at 21:53, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: How about this: Each waitlist recipient specifies a desired block size and a minimum acceptable block size. Wait list recipients can change their minimum acceptable block size at any time so long as it is no shorter than their originally approved block size. When ARIN receives a block to fulfill a waitlist request, the first waitlister in line with a minimum acceptable block size ≥ the available block size gets it. In other words, let’s say we have the following waitlist: Party Approved Minimum acceptable A /23 /23 B /22 /23 C /22 /24 D /24 /24 E /22 /23 F /22 /24 Let’s say ARIN receives a /24. The first /24 would go to party C. If ARIN then received another /24, it would go to party D. If ARIN then received a /22, Parties A and B would receive a /23 each. Owen On Feb 16, 2024, at 17:01, Denis Motova <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Scott, I appreciate the innovative perspective and thorough thought process you've articulated in your email. There are a couple of points I'd like to highlight: The new policy shouldn’t be retroactive, it should be only a policy going forward. I mention it only because I think it’s important to make that distinction clear. Secondly, I find your proposed approach in the second paragraph intriguing. It's far more nuanced than simply restricting everyone to a maximum of a /24. I believe you're onto something promising here, and it could serve as a sensible strategy moving forward. Regarding the issue of "time," it's important to acknowledge the existence of a secondary market for IPs. If there's significant pressure, purchasing IPs should be considered a viable option rather than solely relying on expedited access through the waiting list. Maintaining a balance is key; those with urgent needs can acquire IPs through purchase, while others can join the waiting list and adhere to the traditional process. Personally, I believe this approach strikes a fair and equitable balance. -Denis On 16 Feb 2024, at 21:14, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> wrote: The point isn't to "improve the visual appearance of the waiting list numbers". Everyone knows the free pool is empty except for the reclaimed dregs, and we're deciding who should get how much of the dregs. The point of this proposal, limiting the maximum allocation to /24, is to allocate smaller netblocks to organizations that have been waiting a shorter amount of time, instead of making everyone wait longer while those with a non-time-sensitive justification for a larger block can get one and those who only need a smaller block wait in line longer. Another alternative to limiting everyone to a /24 would be to prioritize the waitlist such that everyone's place in line is determined by how long they've been waiting divided by how many /24s they're requesting. So at any given time, we might be fulfilling /24 requests that have been waiting 6 months, /23 requests that have been waiting a year, and /22 requests that have been waiting 2 years. (Or 1, 2, and 4 years, respectively.) That way no one is penalized for accepting a smaller block, and an organization who can usefully use a /24 now and a /24 later gets a /23 worth of space in the same amount of time as someone holding out for a contiguous /23. -Scott On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 12:56 PM Denis Motova <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear William, I appreciate your message and your input. I have some reservations about agreeing with the statement you made, and I'll explain my reasoning below: I strongly believe that there are numerous legitimate businesses currently on the waiting list seeking IP space allocations of /22, /23, and /24. By removing the option for these allocations, we essentially transform the waiting list into what you described in a previous post as catering to "hobbyists and speculators." It's unlikely that any serious company would require only 256 IPs within a network; that's essentially a micro-network. As you are aware, there are multiple avenues for obtaining IP space, including the waiting list and authorized purchase methods. From my perspective, if a business urgently needs IP space, they would likely follow the example of AWS and invest in acquiring the necessary resources rather than wait through the waiting list. For instance, one of our customers acquired a /17 by purchasing it from the market after providing justifications to ARIN for the IP space. While this involved a significant financial investment, it demonstrated the seriousness of their business needs. I fail to see the value in limiting everyone's network size solely to improve the visual appearance of the waiting list numbers. Thank you once again for your collaborative spirit and feedback. Sincerely, Denis On 16 Feb 2024, at 15:52, William Herrin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 8:52 AM Denis Motova <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: A. Decreasing the allocation to a /24 means that new allocation holders would receive a minuscule network, hardly sufficient for small to mid-sized deployments. Hi Denis, At this point, the wait list is for hobbyists and speculators: people who can afford to wait, which a serious business cannot. Tell me I'm wrong. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://bill.herrin.us/ _______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
