Other AC members and I are in the process of crafting a proposal to address this issue.
Please stay tuned. I hope to have something ready to post to PPML in the next few weeks. Owen On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:19 PM, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: > On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> wrote: > >> On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, "Jérôme Nicolle" <jer...@ceriz.fr> wrote: >> >>> It is necessary to keep an acceptable churn and still allocate small >>> blocks to newcomers, merely to deploy CGNs. >>> >>> Not doing so would end up in courts for entry barrier enforced by a >>> monopoly (the RIRs). >> >> There is a /10 reserved to facilitate IPv6 deployment: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10 >> "Reclamation" is facilitated by offering a financial benefit, i.e., >> selling underused addresses. > > Note that under the "slow start" IPv4 address allocation policies, > small ISPs do not qualify for an initial allocation from ARIN until > they have utilized a provider-assigned block of the minimum size > specified (based on being singly-homed or multi-homed.) These same > criteria now apply to receipt of an address block via transfer, so at > regional IPv4 free pool depletion may be _very_ difficult to satisfy. > > There are a number of ways of addressing this (changing initial ISP > allocation policy, changing dependence on allocation policies for > transfer approvals, establishing a reserved block for new entrants, > etc.) but if left unaddressed will leave circumstances such that new > entrants are precluded from participating in the transfer market as > a recipient. This is the type of outcome that is generally frowned > upon by governments for obvious reasons, and should be very carefully > considered by the community. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > >