So, it sounds like we are talking about a policy aimed purely at ARIN
members in the 4XL and 5XL fee categories.
Furthermore, if an organization is large enough, the same statement could
be made even with an 80% threshold.
So, let's do the math; if an organization has 5 /8s at 80% full, that is a
/8 of free space.
Also, a similar statement, relatively speaking, could be made about anyone
in the XL or higher fee category having more than a /16 of free space.
We could set a maximum transfer unit, change the percentage, or whatever.
But unless someone has a way to detect futures contracts and make them
illegal, it's not going to be that hard to work around any changes to the
policy that we make.
We have the current policy because we wanted to make it easy for the small
and medium guys to justify sizable blocks if they can justify them
financially, as the market would add financial justification to the overall
criteria.
Yes, the same holds true for the big guys. Why shouldn't it? From a
relative perspective, it's not any easier for the big guys. Their size
and the absolute values involved just make it sound easier, but it's not.
Yes, the market is driving up the price for IPv4. That is what we expected.
The answer is for people to start using IPv6. Not for us to try to
manipulate the IPv4 marketplace by trying to pick winners and losers.
The rules are the rules, and let's have one set of rules: big, medium, or
small.
It's not that I oppose making any changes, but I don't think any changes
are going to be effective and fundamentally change the fact that IPv4
prices are going up and will continue to do so regardless of any policy
changes we make. More importantly, I'm worried that making changes at this
point will have unintended consequences.
Thanks.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 3:45 PM A N <anita.nikol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On behalf of the ARIN AC Policy Experience Working Group, and in response
> to the Policy Implementation and Experience Report presented at ARIN 51,
> we're looking for input on a possible proposed revamp of NRPM Section 8.5.6
> "Efficient Utilization of Previous Blocks".
>
> The crux of the issue is there are very large orgs that could have a /8 or
> more of unused space, yet still qualify for more based on the current
> policy ("must have efficiently utilized at least 50%"). Smaller orgs with
> more immediate needs are in competition for the space, and prices are
> driven up.
>
> The Working Group would like some input on this before drafting a
> proposal. Input or thoughts are welcome about:
> - should the utilization be raised, and if so, to what threshold?
> - should utilization criteria be tied to the size of the org, in other
> words tiered?
> - any other thoughts.
>
> Thanks much!
> Anita
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
