Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: The case against need based justification (Matthew Kaufman)
2. Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4? (Matthew Kaufman)
3. Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4? (William Herrin)
4. Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4? (Rob Seastrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:09:29 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The case against need based justification
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 4/15/2013 9:58 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
> What are these "real problems" we are ignoring?
>
>
ISPs trying to get smaller than /32 of IPv6 from ARIN in order to save a
few bucks?
Matthew Kaufman
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:13:11 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 4/15/2013 2:38 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:43 AM, "Tim St. Pierre" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> Now we have a running network, with real customers, and we need IPv4
>>> allocations, since running IPv6 only for retail Internet is a bit
>>> problematic. We tried to get a /24 out of our upstream, but they are
>>> essentially out of address space and can't give us any. They can't get
>>> any more either, because they just got taken over by a larger carrier
>>> that has free pools, but on a different AS.
>>>
>>> We do have another upstream that we could connect to, but they can't
>>> give us anything more than a /28 either.
>>>
>>> I applied for a /22 under the immediate need category, but I don't
>>> qualify, since I can really only use about 2/3 of it within 30 days.
> Hi Tim,
>
> If an IPv4 address market is going to work *at all* then it will work
> for this situation.
Well, the IPv4 market won't work if we enforce the same needs rules on
transfers as we do on new allocations.
> It looks like you drew the short straw and get to
> be the guinea pig. Find someone with a /24 willing to sell and acquire
> it under NRPM 8.3. And document the heck out of the process so that
> your experience can guide the next policy changes around the IPv4
> market concept.
If he went to the transfer market, he'd want to get at least a /22 and
probably a lot more (so that he doesn't need to take the risk of going
back repeatedly). But the stupid thing is that ARIN's rules that keep
him from getting a /22 from ARIN also disqualify him from being a
transfer recipient for enough space for justify raising the money to buy
space.
Matthew Kaufman
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:00:08 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Message-ID:
<CAP-guGVUFU1Jy4G-DOt=5uarvy9hifovtsl+1t64hptwaum...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:38 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If an IPv4 address market is going to work *at all* then it will work
>> for this situation. It looks like you drew the short straw and get to
>> be the guinea pig. Find someone with a /24 willing to sell and acquire
>> it under NRPM 8.3. And document the heck out of the process so that
>> your experience can guide the next policy changes around the IPv4
>> market concept.
>
> If he can't qualify for space from ARIN, how is he going to qualify to
> receive space via transfer? The requirements are the same (with the
> exception of 3-month vs. 24-month need, which isn't the limiting factor
> here). And the minimum allocation size for ISPs is /22 per NRPM 4.2.2.2:
> only end-users can get /24's from ARIN (or via transfer), under NRPM
> 4.3.2.2.
Hi John,
Can you comment on this? Are ISPs able to receive /24 and /23 blocks
via NRPM 8.3 transfers?
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:27:29 -0400
From: Rob Seastrom <[email protected]>
To: "Tim St. Pierre" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for
IPv4?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
"Tim St. Pierre" <[email protected]> writes:
> I applied for a /22 under the immediate need category, but I don't
> qualify, since I can really only use about 2/3 of it within 30 days.
Something seems wrong here. I've filled out an immediate need request
or two in my time and had the luxury of being constrained by devices
that want address pools (LNSes, CMTSes) so I can round up to the next
power of 2. I will note for Mr. St. Pierre's benefit that it is
possible that he misread the reason for his denial - the bar for
supporting documentation is extraordinarily high in an immediate need
application, since one is substituting a big pile of paperwork for
one's slow start utilization record that is normally used to justify
space.
Assuming that Mr. St. Pierre didn't misread his reason for denial, I'm
a bit confused.
Once upon a time, Immediate Need was a one-size-fits-all /20. That
got fixed to be an appropriate sized block some years ago (see
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_9.html for details).
Is ARIN staff currently interpreting NRPM 4.2.1.6 to mean that
immediate need can only be demonstrated for exact powers of two, with
100% utilization immediately? Has the 80% rule somehow gotten
applied here?
This would seem to me to be the wrong test to apply. When I authored
2007-9 I assumed that Staff would evaluate immediate need and issue
the smallest aggregate that would cover the number of addresses
justified for immediate use.
Without commenting on Mr. St. Pierre's particular case, could ARIN
staff comment on whether current policy is creating a problem at the
low size end of the justification window (i.e., is the fully filled
/23 a problem when an ISP can not get a /23 under current policy?) or
is being interpreted to mean only exact precise powers of two, no more
and no less, and any other perceived inadequacies in the current
immediate need policy?
I am not in favor of using IPv6 utilization as a justification for
IPv4 addresses at this time. I am however in favor of smoking out
whether 4.2.1.6 needs to be revisited.
-r
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 94, Issue 35
*****************************************
