owen at delong.com
Wed Sep 13 00:30:45 UTC 2006
On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 06:55:11PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>> I find the references to alleged, inherent difficulties with the ARIN
>> resource assignment process increasingly tedious. Even if the
>> templates were "impossible to decipher", this isn't the forum to
>> discuss them.
>> In my opinion, you do the argument in favour of open trading of
>> addresses as commodities a rank disservice by linking it to this kind
>> of FUD.
> Ever notice the only folks happy with the status quo are the few
> who have
> already have an intimate knowledge of the ARIN allocation process,
> have the right political connections to resolve the "issues" that
> come up
> when dealing with them?
I'm not sure I completely buy this. However, I guess these days I'm
one of the "few" who already have an intimate knowledge.
I do remember being frustrated with the process when I was new
to the process and even more so when the process was new.
However, I can say that today, the process is much better documented,
simpler, and more efficient than it was 10 or even 5 years ago.
> Try looking at it from an outsider's point of view instead. If
> you're new
> to dealing with ARIN, it is not uncommon to find the process is
> baffling, frustrating, slow, expensive, and requiring intrusive
> just shy of an anal cavity probe.
I've had several clients who indeed perceived it this way. However, in
each of their cases, I was able to spend a few hours working with them
to collect the necessary information, fill out the ARIN template on
behalf, and, obtain address space for them in between 5 and 20
man hours. In terms of elapsed calendar time from initial submission
to allocation, it ranged from 4-10 days if you don't count delays
by my clients not having certain prerequisites in place on time.
> In any kind of free market system, competition would have
> bitchslapped the
> current ARIN way of doing things a long, long time ago. Personally
> I find
> the single most compelling reason to move to IPv6 to be the removal
> of any
> justification for ARIN's continued existance in its current form.
I'm not sure this is true. I think if you compare the ARIN process
IP addresses to the FCC process for getting spectrum, ARIN's process is
MUCH easier. Care to venture what it takes to get an allocation for a
geosynchronous orbital slot? Guaranteed that's quite a bit harder than
ARIN's process. Ever try to get your own issuance of phone numbers
from NANPA or another telephone number registry? Yeah, that's quite
a bit harder than ARIN, too.
Can you please point to another registry for globally unique limited
numeric addresses which is easier to deal with than ARIN?
> Somehow I suspect the only folks who wouldn't welcome this are the
> who benefit from the one thing ARIN is actually good at doing, namely
> paying for frequent business class travel and accomodations to exotic
> locations around the world under the pretense of "meetings". Hrm
> guess I
> had better offer dinner in St Louis is on me for whichever one of my
> friends on the "ARIN travel plan" complains about this post first. :)
while I have not always seen eye-to-eye with ARIN, this comment is
flat out unjustified in my opinion. ARIN works very hard to provide
an open and transparent governance process. They put significant
effort into outreach trying to make the process easier and more
accessible to newcomers. They have made significant effort to
help people gain access to the addresses they need while still
trying to be an effective gatekeeper against unwarranted hoarding
or unjustified address acquisition.
I'm not on the "ARIN travel plan", but, I do find the public policy
meetings a useful forum. I think that combined with the PPML,
they provide about the best possible process for the evolution of
IP policy in the ARIN service region. If you have a better idea,
let's hear it. How would you like to see things done? The primary
difference between whining and constructive criticism is that
constructive criticism includes suggested remedies to the
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the NANOG