Hi Randy,

But 2014-14 would make it impossible to "buy up all of the space and then set its own price." Only a single /16 per year per entity could be received without a needs test. The original /0 IPv4 space was fragmented originally into /8s and then into /16s, and then atomized and dispersed through another 20 years of worldwide allocations. There is just no way to re-aggregate the space into a single operational seller. Certainly not out of the sight of ARIN policy makers, who have the whip-hand here.

On the other hand, 2014-14 would diminish the FUD for the more numerous and smaller participants, and would mitigate many problems (like Mr. Ryerse's).

I do agree with you that the reduction in the minimum sizes to /24 has made it easier for people to get /24s from the remaining ARIN free pool. But finding /24s on the transfer market is hit-and-miss. I think streamlining the sales process for the smallest buyers would work to their favor in terms of price and availability, and that streamlining is best achieved by a sophisticated and experienced seller with an inventory of IPv4 space which they do not need. 2014-14 would allow such an inventory to be filled, but limited to one such /16 per year. If results of such an experiment are deemed positive by the community, 2014-14 could remain in place or be extended. If the results are perceived to be negative, informed policy-makers can change back to a needs-based policy, following the example of APNIC.

Regards,
Mike



Regards,
Mike

----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Carpenter" <rcar...@network1.net>
To: "Steven Ryerse" <srye...@eclipse-networks.com>
Cc: <arin-ppml@arin.net>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness



A capitalistic model does not work for a finite resource like IP addresses. All that would happen is that a large company could just buy up all of the space, and then set its own price for everyone else. How's that for "fairness" ?? I don't see how you can argue for treating smaller orgs more fairly by proposing to allow large companies to set whatever ridiculous price they want.

I still don't get the needs argument at all. If an org can't show that it needs the addresses, then why do they need the addresses?

I agree that in the past it was difficult for small non-multihomed orgs to get space. But now that the minimum is a /24, it is so ridiculously easy.

-Randy

----- On Dec 19, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Steven Ryerse srye...@eclipse-networks.com wrote:

I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the discussion. I wish ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a capitalistic manner. Then as long as an Org is willing to pay the going rate resources could be acquired guaranteed as long as there are sellers. There is no needs testing in that model just supply and demand and the ability to pay. How do we change to the Capitalistic
model from what we got now?

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
            Conquering Complex Networks℠

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to respond to my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is - because it exists in a
capitalistic society - because you have no answer for that.

I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest debate on
this issue.  What you are doing is sitting back and cherry picking weak
arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones. So I am not going to waste
much more time with you on this.

But I will say that your comment:

" If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to
start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"

is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.

The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember, replaced by domain names that are easy to remember. The average English speaking adult knows about 50,000 English words. There's over 100 million .com domain names registered at this point. We have far and away exceeded the number of English
.com one word domain names that an average person would know.

Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names. Oh sure, you can
still register new .com domain names that are nonsense like
fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate long sentences like
thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but neither of those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name. They are, in fact, harder to remember than the IP addresses that they are supposed to make "easy
to remember"

There

On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible .com
permutations is limited too. IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are both
just Internet resources that Internet users need to use the Internet.
Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com combinations, but IPv4 is still the only way to access most of the Internet. While ARIN has resources to allocate - I'm absolutely fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the size of an Org and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org any
resources.

Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation. Regardless of any policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year. If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to start denying small Orgs
.com domain name requests?

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 Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:

If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, then it isn’t OK to deny an Org the Minimum IP allocation. They are both Internet
resources.


The analogy seems faulty to me. The number space is finite (and in the case of v4, not very large). The name space in any given registry is admittedly not
infinite, since (1) it's limited to labels 63 octets long from the LDH
repertoire and (2) useful mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and usually a wordlike thing in some natural language. There are, however, lots of
registries (more all the time!
Thanks, ICANN!); and last I checked neither info nor biz was anything close to the size (or utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001 and have rather similar registration rules. So, there is an argument in favour of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not available in the name
case.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to