Owen, I appreciate the dialog but I think you are ignoring what goes on during
the allocation process for medium and larger organizations. You and I disagree
that the current policies are fair and I do not think I'm being irresponsible
to try and correct that! I've been told this is the proper forum to effect
policy change by you and others and I am trying to follow the change procedure
as best I can.
As I've noted before:
When a medium or larger organization requests a medium or larger block they
probably will come away from it with an allocation, possibly smaller than
requested but they are likely to receive an allocation none the less. When a
small organization requests the minimum block size and that request is refused
because of policy, they get nothing at all and no offer of something smaller
because there isn't anything smaller. So, no matter how you slice it, that is
an un-even playing field - and it is arbitrary, unfair, and discriminatory
against small organizations in favor of larger ones. I have been pointing this
out for years and I've said it just about every way I know how. The have's get
more and the have not's don't. It is time this gets corrected to level the
playing field for all as that is ARINs Mission and raison d'etre.
My proposal ARIN 2014-18 is specifically designed to rectify and level the
playing field so that regardless of what size allocation was requested, a small
organization can at least get the Minimum size block. This then makes it so
the larger org gets what they requested or something smaller, and the medium
size org gets what they requested or something smaller, and the smaller org
gets what they requested or the current Minimum. This proposed policy Minimum
allocation is limited to once per year per this policy proposal.
As I said many times before the needs testing policies should be replaced by
right-sizing policies, BUT, ARIN 2014-18 is only intended to correct the
unfairness of current policies for allocations to smaller organizations and
does not attempt to change any other aspect of the currently policies.
Also, as there is a lot of policy talent in this community, I would welcome
constructive comments and possible changes to this policy as long as they don't
change the intended purpose of this policy proposal.
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: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 1:05 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Gary Buhrmaster; ARIN; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18: Simplifying
MinimumAllocations and Assignments
Steven, many of your statements are patently false.
First of all, the current allocation/assignment process is fair. Everyone is
subject to the same policies and it is quite easy for small organizations to
obtain IP space under the existing process. I have obtained legitimate
assignments for organizations as small as a sole proprietorship with no
employees and have obtained allocations for extremely small ISPs.
I have yet to see an organization so small that they could not obtain addresses
under current policy because of their size.
Needs testing is not merely a vehicle to save the remaining free pool. If that
were true, then we would not have subjected the transfer policies to needs
testing. Further, I’m all for distributing the remaining IPv4 free pool to
organizations with legitimate need as quickly as possible. I believe that the
longer we have an IPv4 free pool at this point, the longer we will have to deal
with the pain of this transition process and the longer people will continue to
procrastinate the necessary move to IPv6. So if I truly believed that needs
testing was really a vehicle to save the free pool, I would be leading the
charge to eliminate needs testing. Instead, I’ve remained strongly opposed to
eliminating needs basis from ARIN policy and preserved needs basis when I
proposed a significant rewrite of the IPv6 allocation policy (which was
adopted).
I don’t believe any of Gary’s comments were at all related to organization
size, so your retort to his kitchen comment seems non-sequiter.
ARIN2014-18 is an irresponsible attempt to streamline the process of hoarding
address space by creating multiple ORG-IDs and I cannot support it as such.
ARIN2014-18 would not only affect the remaining free pool (which I doubt will
be meaningful by the time any policy now being discussed could be implemented),
but would also not only allow, but encourage an irresponsible fragmentation of
address space for the purpose of monetary gains through specified transfers.
Opposition to 2014-18 is not about discriminating against small organizations
(anyone who has followed my involvement with ARIN or looks at my voting record
would have a very hard time claiming I support such discrimination). While I
don’t believe that the policy is intended to do what I have said above,
nonetheless, the consequences described are, IMHO, the inevitable result should
this policy be adopted and therefore, I oppose the policy as written.
Owen
On Sep 3, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Steven Ryerse <srye...@eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> I've been on projects extensively the last month and a half and only now are
> getting back to this proposal. Gary, I take your comment below to mean that
> you are not in favor of making the allocation fair to small organizations. I
> think there has been a consensus building that it is more difficult for a
> small organization to get an allocation than a larger one, and I don't see
> anywhere in ARINs Mission that it is OK to discriminate against small
> organizations.
>
> I would also add that needs testing is really a vehicle to somehow save the
> remaining ipv4 pool we all know the only way to stop that is to stop
> allocating altogether which of course isn't ARINs mission. As to your comment
> about being in the Kitchen I would ask you where in ARINs Mission does it say
> that it is OK to discriminate based on an Organizations size.
>
> ARIN 2014-18 is a reasonable attempt to rectify that and I would ask for this
> communities support. As the Minimum was just reduced to a /24, it is really
> going to save the remaining ipv4 pool to stop small organizations from
> getting a /24? When do we stop rearranging deck chairs on the ipv4 Titanic
> that can't be saved?
>
> 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: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net]
> On Behalf Of Gary Buhrmaster
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:59 PM
> To: ARIN
> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18: Simplifying
> MinimumAllocations and Assignments
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:58 PM, ARIN <i...@arin.net> wrote:
>> On 17 July 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
>> "ARIN-prop-210 Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments" as a Draft
>> Policy.
>>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18 is below and can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_18.html
>
> Opposed as written. I believe that continued needs testing is an important
> criteria for receiving resources, and this proposal would eliminate justified
> needs testing.
>
> As to the costs of doing business, well, while I can understand the
> those seeking resources may not have properly planned for the costs of
> their start up and/or expansion, that is a failure of the requesting
> organization(s) leaders and their staff, and requesting relief from ARIN
> policy because of that failure is not an appropriate response. If it gets
> too hot in the kitchen, do not be a cook.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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.
