[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)

On 8/4/13 09:35 , Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 3:41 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu
> <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
>
>     On 8/1/13 12:27 , Tore Anderson wrote:
>
>         * Nick Hilliard
>
>             On 01/08/2013 07:38, Tore Anderson wrote:
>
>                 «Fair use: Public IPv4 address space must be fairly
>                 distributed to the
>                 End Users operating networks.»
>
>             can you define "fair"?
>
>     I believe the primary definition of fairness the RIR communities
>     have been using is, "only those that have *verified operational
>     need* get Internet number resources".
>
> Uhm, if that has been the definition of fairness, then it certainly has
> NOT been enforced or used in the past few years. Perhaps never.

There has allows been a need component, prior to IPv4 each network 
"needed" a network identifier, equivalent to a /8 today.  With IPv4 
pre-CIDR, this changed to three class of network identifiers; classes A, 
B, and C, /8s, /16s, and /24s today.  You had to meet additional 
criteria to get a class A or B, otherwise you got a C.  This is still 
based on need, but a little more granularity.  By today's standards were 
most of those class As or Bs needed, maybe not, but there were needed by 
the standards of the day.  RFCs 1366, 1466, 2050, document the criteria 
used and its evolution, until the RIR policy process take over.

> It is, as you state later on, one of those hollow "jesters".

They may have also been hollow gestures, but not a hollow as saying that 
fairness is necessary without and kind of mechanism providing it.

(Sorry, I can't spell for shirt :) , see http://tinyurl.com/l3cop8b )

>     Furthermore, I believe that now that everyone's operational need can
>     no longer be meet, a state of scarcity, that fairness is doubly
>     important.  How does verified operational need provide fairness in a
>     state of scarcity?  If someone without verified operational need
>     were to receive Internet number resources, presumably through a
>     transfer, and you have verifiable operational need that can no
>     longer be meet; it would add insult to injury that someone without
>     that verifiable operational need receives Internet number resources
>     when you can't.
>
> This is how Internet number resources have been handled for years;
> organizations without verified operational needs have received Internet
> number resources, some in huge quantities.

If you mean address were handed out without need by today's standards, 
sure, but hind sight is allows 20-20.  But, if you mean addresses were 
handed out without need by the standards of the day then I have to disagree.

> One could easily argue that this is one of the root problems with former
> Internet number resource handling.
>
> Fortunately, IPv6 came to the rescue.

I sure hope IPv6 comes to the rescue, but I'm not sure we have been 
rescued just yet.  I'm only able to get ~40% of my traffic via IPv6, 
this is moving the the right direction but, we're not rescued yet.

>       Therefore, verifying operational need for transfers, still
>     provides some minimal amount of fairness to those that are not going
>     to receive Internet number resources.
>
> If the verification is going to be at the level it used to be, that
> fairness is so minimal that you can't poke a stick at it. It is, at
> best, an illusion.
>
>     While this is a start, just saying fairness is necessary, is a
>     hollow jester, without verified operational need or some other
>     replacement mechanism to provides the fairness you are saying is
>     necessary.
>
> If you want to introduce verification of the operational need, I suggest
> you write your own proposal to the RIPE community, so that we can
> discuss and handle the proposed changes accordingly.

I'm not introducing anything new, I'm objecting to the removal of 
something that has always been there, as are others.

> But I cannot, for the life of me, understand what this has to do with
> 2013-03, sorry.

It is in the very title of the proposal "No Need - Post-Depletion 
Reality Adjustment".

> --
> Jan


-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================