On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > Really, it seems to me that this proposal is another attempt at > eliminating the waiting list for unmet requests. > > The first attempt (ARIN auctions the space) met with resistance from > ARIN’s legal team (for good reason), so now this attempts to sequester the > space where it will be hard to distribute rather than allowing the waiting > list to have any potential to compete with the transfer market. > > The proposed targets (4.4 and 4.10 pools) are well stocked and unlikely to > run out in any useful IPv4 lifetime. > > As such, restocking them from returned space strikes me as just a way to > sequester this space where it cannot be used. > > IMHO, this is counter to ARIN’s mission and should not be allowed. > > I oppose the policy as written and as proposed to be amended. > >
For different reasons, but generally close enough, agree. +1 > > On Aug 15, 2019, at 13:55 , WOOD Alison * DAS via ARIN-PPML < > arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote: > > Thank you for the continued input on this draft policy proposal. > > I will be updating the text of the draft policy to include both 4.4 and > 4.10 pools. Point of information, the 4.4 pool currently has approximately > 391 /24’s and 4.10 has approximately 15,753 /24’s available and are not > estimated to run out in the next five years. > > Please keep your feedback coming, it is very helpful for the council. > > -Alison > > *From:* ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net > <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>] *On Behalf Of *Fernando Frediani > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:44 AM > *To:* arin-ppml <arin-ppml@arin.net> > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses > to the 4.10 Reserved Pool > > > The point is that you treating IP marketing as something 'natural' or a > 'default route' which it is not and can never be. Natural is to receive > some addresses from the RIR in first place so they are treated as anyone > else was in the past and have a chance to exist in the Internet with same > conditions as all others. From that if they need extra space then fine to > seek for alternative ways. > > I don't think a new entrants would automatically qualify for 4.10 in all > cases therefore any space left should be targeted also to them as well to > IPv6 transition and critical infrastructure. Otherwise the community will > be creating an artificial barrier to them in order to favor the IP market > while the RIR still has IPv4 space available for them. > > Fernando > On 30/07/2019 10:30, Tom Fantacone wrote: > > I would think that the majority of new entrants would need at least some > allocation to help with IPv6 transition and would qualify for addresses > from the 4.10 pool. Depending on what they receive from that pool and > when, they may not qualify for additional waiting list addresses and would > have to go to the transfer market for additional IPv4 space anyway. Those > that don't qualify under 4.10 can still get smaller IPv4 blocks on the > transfer market readily, and the cost for blocks in the /24-/22 range is > not prohibitive. Certainly an organization seeking a small IPv4 block for > multi-homing or other purposes is better off spending a few thousand > dollars to purchase a range than waiting a year on the waiting list to put > their plans in motion. > > > Note that while RIPE does not have a reserve pool specifically for IPv6 > transition, the expectation of their final /8 policy was to allow new > entrants access to IPv4 to assist in this transition. In reality, it > didn't work out that way and most of the /22 allocations to new LIRs from > the final /8 were to existing organizations who spun up new, related > entities in order to increase their IPv4 holdings: > > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/so-long-last-8-and-thanks-for-all-the-allocations > > I'm also sympathetic to new entrants, but don't see the current waiting > list as a great help to them vs. the 4.10 pool or the transfer market, both > of which allow you your allocation in a timely fashion. > > Best Regards, > > Tom Fantacone > > ---- On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 11:39:32 -0400 *Fernando Frediani > <fhfredi...@gmail.com <fhfredi...@gmail.com>>* wrote ---- > > > I find it interesting the idea of privileging the pool dedicated to > facilitate IPv6 Deployment and I also agree with the comments below in > the sense that it's not very beneficial do most ARIN members due to max > size, /22, cannot be holding more than a /20. > > However one point I couldn't identify is where the new entrants stand in > this new possible scenario ? Will they only be able to apply under the > 4.10 reserved pool ? If so for a access/broadband ISPs may be easier to > fit, but not necessarily for other scenarios and types of ISPs. > Therefore if I didn't miss anything these returned addresses should also > be able to go to new entrants, not only to 4.10 reserved pool conditions. > > Best regards > Fernando Frediani > > On 25/07/2019 17:32, Tom Fantacone wrote: > > I found the wording of the Problem Statement on this one a bit > > confusing. However, after deciphering the effect of the actual policy > > change I support it. > > > > Essentially, all returned IPv4 space will no longer go to the waiting > > list but will supplement the 4.10 reserved pool used to enhance IPv6 > > deployment. This essentially kills off the waiting list. > > > > The recent restrictions placed on the waiting list to reduce fraud > > have hobbled it to the point where it's not very beneficial to most > > ARIN members. (Max size, /22, cannot be holding more than a /20). > > It's essentially only useful to new entrants, but those that go on it > > still have to wait many months to receive their small allocation. If > > they justify need now, but have to wait that long, how critical is > > their need if they're willing to wait that long? Small blocks are not > > terribly expensive and can be quickly gotten on the transfer market. > > I can understand waiting that long for a large block needed for a > > longer term project due to prohibitive cost, but I don't see a great > > benefit to the waiting list as it stands. > > > > Also, if there's any fraud left on the waiting list, this would kill it. > > > > I would hope, however, that if implemented, those currently on the > > waiting list would be grandfathered in. I do think some entities with > > legitimate need got burned on the last change made to the waiting list. > > > > At 04:05 PM 7/23/2019, ARIN wrote: > >> On 18 July 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > >> "ARIN-prop-276: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool" as a > >> Draft Policy. > >> > >> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17 is below and can be found at: > >> > >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_17/ > >> > >> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will > >> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this > >> draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource > >> policy as stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). > >> Specifically, these principles are: > >> > >> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > >> * Technically Sound > >> * Supported by the Community > >> > >> The PDP can be found at: > >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ > >> > >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Sean Hopkins > >> Policy Analyst > >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > >> > >> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool > >> > >> Problem Statement: > >> > >> An inconsistent and unpredictable stream of address space is an > >> unsuitable method of populating the waiting list (4.1.8.1) and > >> fulfilling subsequent requests. > >> > >> Policy statement: > >> > >> Change "4.10. Dedicated IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment" to > >> "4.10 Dedicated IPv4 Pool to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment" > >> > >> Change" When ARIN receives its last /8 IPv4 allocation from IANA, a > >> contiguous /10 IPv4 block will be set aside and dedicated to > >> facilitate IPv6 deployment. Allocations and assignments from this > >> block " to "In addition to the contiguous /10 IPv4 block set aside > >> and dedicated to facilitate IPv6 deployment, all returns and > >> revocations of IPv4 blocks will be added to the pool of space > >> dedicated to the facilitation of IPv6 deployment. Allocations and > >> assignments from this pool " > >> > >> Change "This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of > >> /28 and a maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse > >> allocation when possible within that /10 block." to "This pool will > >> be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a maximum sized > >> allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when possible > >> within the pool." > >> > >> Comments: > >> > >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-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: > >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > >> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-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: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.