Hi,
On 2026-09-24 22:38, Daryll Swer wrote:
> Further, any belief that ARIN is likely to be a continuing source of
IPv4 addresses is ill-advised at best. Move on to IPv6. It’s long
overdue.
+1
I still see way too much effort, energy, time and money spent on:
IPv4. Instead of rolling out IPv6.
I agree with you, actually. Why is ARIN spending all this effort,
energy, time, and money trying to add new restrictions to the IPv4
waiting list in this policy proposal? Recall the specific wording this
policy is inserting:
Out-of-Region Usage Justification may not be used to receive IPv4 address space
from the ARIN Waiting List (4.1.8), the Micro-allocation Pool (4.4), or the
Dedicated IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment (4.10).
Any organization already on the Waiting List at the time this policy is
implemented will be exempted and shall remain eligible under the rules in
effect at the time of its placement on the Waiting List.
Why is this change even necessary? Why are we slapping a restriction on
IPv4 justifications this late in the game? Why are we rearranging the
deck chairs on a sinking ship? This is but one of the reasons why I am
opposed to the policy.
Of course we need v4, but come on: why aren't we spending as much time
and effort, *collectively*, with 464xlat and MAP-T, instead?
You are asking the right questions about the IPv6 transition. You should
know that this policy proposal makes it more difficult also.
Consider the case where you are happily using IPv6 from ARIN
out-of-region and want to deploy 464XLAT or MAP-T to ensure you can
access legacy IPv4 stuff, but need a bit of IPv4 space to do so.
According to ARIN-2025-8, ARIN already rejects out-of-region requests
under 4.10. Even if ARIN doesn't, the section of this proposal I quoted
will forbid section 4.10 from being used here. So your only option to
get the IPv4 space for such would be to:
1. Get it from the ARIN waiting list; or
2. Buy it from an IPv4 broker.
The recommended draft policy ARIN-2025-3 will close off the first
avenue, which makes it harder to do IPv6 transition.
So I ask again, why are we spending time actively making the situation
worse? Why are people even proposing such restrictions when they could
be thinking about the IPv6 transition? Therefore, I oppose this
recommended policy as written.
Best regards,
Quantum
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
