I would point out that very clearly, anyone who wanted a /24 got one from Jon,
just by requesting one. I was one of the many folks who requested and received
a /24. I also requested 4 consecutive /24's (Class C's) for a larger customer
and received those as well. I'm also reasonably sure that if I had requested a
/8 (Class A) - I would not have gotten one - but I would not have gotten zero
resources.
The first word in item #1 below is Fair. I agree we need balance and as I
think you know by now I strongly do not think current policy is FAIR at the
small end. When big org requests big block they either get a big block or a
smaller block. When medium org requests medium block they either get medium
block or they get smaller block. When small org requests small block they
either get small block or NO BLOCK. This is inherently UNFAIR in my opinion.
I see no balance when a small org is discriminated against because they are
small and have limited means. Thus Dave and Sue in their garage without the
proverbial business plan or whatever to prove their need are shut out - and
that is against ARINs Mission.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
-----Original Message-----
From: John Curran [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:20 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
On Dec 15, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of
> Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet. When I read the
> original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that
> "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and
> allocation. Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of
> the mission of advancement and allocation.
Steven -
Note that Jon Postal was instrumental to ARIN's founding and served an
ex-officio Trustee at its inception. The policies that were in effect at the
time are stated in RFC 2050 (which Jon was one of the
authors) and includes the following text regarding goals -
"
Internet address space is distributed according to the following
three goals:
1) Conservation: Fair distribution of globally unique Internet address
space according to the operational needs of the end-users and Internet
Service Providers operating networks using this address space.
Prevention of stockpiling in order to maximize the lifetime of the
Internet address space.
...
3) Registration: Provision of a public registry documenting address
space allocation and assignment. This is necessary to ensure
uniqueness and to provide information for Internet trouble shooting
at all levels.
..
All the above goals may sometimes be in conflict with the interests of
individual end-users or Internet service providers. Careful analysis
and judgement is necessary in each individual case to find an
appropriate compromise.
"
This supports your view that the goal of conservation is not more important
than provision of a public registry - the goals must be balanced with one
another.
These same principles live on in ARIN's policy development process,
<https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>, which states:
"Policies for Internet number resource management must be evaluated for
soundness against three overarching technical requirements: conservation,
aggregation, and registration. ... Policies must achieve a technically sound
balance of these requirements, and support for these technical requirements
must be documented in the assessment of the policy change."
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based
> policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of
> advancing the Internet. Regardless of your personal definition of need, why
> is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now
> precluded from getting resources? How does that advance the Internet? I
> never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would
> frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.
Whether he would frown is unknowable, but it's unlikely that Jon would be
surprised that we were allocating accordingly to operational need.
(He'd probably be more surprised that we had market-based transfers going on,
given that RFC 2050 directs reclamation for any unneeded address
space...)
> My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some
> balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future
> that will happen. I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the
> very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the
> Internet.
As noted above, the guidelines for address management have evolved over time,
and even before ARIN have included distribution based on operational need; i.e.
your reference to Jon's "loose rules" is probably not correct except in the
very earliest days of the Internet. It's probably far more important that the
policies used in the management of IP address space are developed by the
community per their current requirements and expectations.
Thanks,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
