On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > How does the conservation principle, which you assert applies to both free > pool and allocated addresses, deal with the current RSA language which > explicitly prevents ARIN from revoking due to utilization?
Well, a principle doesn't actually "deal" with anything itself, we (people) must deal with things - by following the guidance of our principles... > It would seem like the RSA is ignoring a guiding principle of stewardship! This is however a solid observation, and I have a couple items for consideration in response: 1) Conservation is not the only guiding principle listed here for a reason, the principle of stewardship is in large part needed to balance the set of guiding principles. 2) ARIN (as a community) has chosen to go down the transfers path rather than the reclamation path, both can serve conservation if properly managed. Cheers, ~Chris PS - I don't want to dominate the conversation here, so I'll likely resist replying to further conversational/directed replies and try to stick more to moderation, etc... > Regards, > Mike > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Chris Grundemann > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 11:46 AM > To: Mike Burns > Cc: Bill Darte ; William Herrin ; arin-ppml@arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - revised > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Mike Burns <m...@nationwideinc.com> wrote: >> >> I see conservation not as a principle, I mean really the guiding principle >> should have been distribution of addresses, not conservation of them. >> The goal was to grow the Internet through the dissemination of addresses. >> Conservation was not the principle, it was the means to prevent the >> emptying >> of the free pool by bad actors. > > > Not true. As I have pointed out in several fora several times before, > conservation of the number space is NOT the same as conservation of a > free pool of addresses. The principle here is conservation of the > number space - the whole thing, not one arbitrary slice of it. > > The definition of conservation from the science dictionary may be > helpful in illustrating what is meant by conservation of Internet > numbers: Conservation is generally held to include the management of > human use of natural resources for current public benefit and > sustainable social and economic utilization. In this case the resource > is the unique Internet number spaces (not just free pools). > >> These recent incarnations of this proposal continue to try to shoehorn >> conservation as a principle, even to the point of including conservation >> inside registration. >> I don’t think it is either a principal or a goal, for that matter, just a >> protective mechanism for free pool addresses. >> With the exhaustion of the free pool, conservation has no place in the >> NRPM. >> Until that time, we don’t need to clutter the NRPM with some hoary >> language >> from another era. > > > If I can be so trite as to quote myself: > > "Understanding that the useful life of IPv4 is far from over (raise > your hand if you have used IPv4 for a critical communication in the > past 24 hours) makes it quite easy to see that we still have a need to > "maximise the lifetime of the public IPv4 address space." > > In fact, the IANA and RIR free pools have essentially been a buffer > protecting us from those who would seek to abuse the public IPv4 > address space. As long as there was a reserve of IPv4 addresses, > perturbations caused by bad actors could be absorbed to a large extent > by doling out "new" addresses into the system under the care of more > responsible folks. Now that almost all of the public IPv4 address > space has moved from RIR pools into the "wild," there is arguably a > much greater need to practice conservation. The loss of the RIR free > pool buffer does not mark the end of "the lifetime of the public IPv4 > address space" as Tore suggests but rather marks our entry into a new > phase of that lifetime where stockpiling and hoarding have become even > more dangerous."[1] > >> I am still against the proposal. > > > As is your right. > > Cheers, > ~Chris > > [1] - http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130523_removing_need_at_ripe/ > >> Regards, >> Mike Burns > > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > -- > @ChrisGrundemann > http://chrisgrundemann.com -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com _______________________________________________ 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: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.