Ok, thanks. Based on that explanation, I don't have any objections to this policy proposal, but neither do I think there is any real need for it.
-Scott On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 12:44 PM John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 11, 2015, at 12:53 AM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ... > > Instead, my question is a simple question of staff interpretation. > Currently, 4.10 is "subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a > maximum size allocation of /24." I presume that means that if an > organization came to ARIN today with a qualifying need for IPv4 space to > support IPv6 deployment, but could not justify need for a /24, that they > would be given a smaller block under 4.10. > > Scott - > > Yes, that is correct, but would only be done if the customer had no > credible case for receiving > a /24 IPv4 allocation, as we presently do not have systems which > support delegation of reverse > DNS services for IPv4 allocations that are smaller than a /24. > > > Question 1: What test does ARIN staff use to determine what size of > block someone qualifies for under 4.10? In particular, is the test for > getting a /24 under 4.10 the same as for free pool allocations/assignments > under 4.2.2.1.1. and 4.3.2? > > The test for making an allocation is to confirm that the requesting > organization has immediate > IPv6 deployment requirements. (To date, only one organization has > qualified under 4.10, and > they were issued a /24, as they were intending to use the space for > immediate IPv6 transition > needs and could plans sufficient for the allocation size.) > > Because this policy has no specific criteria for initial allocation > other than the "immediate IPv6 > deployment” requirement, staff will continue to issue a /24 under this > policy to any organization > who has need and can credibly show that they will utilize the /24 over > time. If an organization > cannot show that they will ever have need the /24 of IPv4 space for > this purpose, under the > present policy we would need to make a smaller allocation (and would > work around any > system issues in a less than elegant fashion.) > > > Secondarily, I wonder if 2014-22, if adopted, would make it easier or > harder to get space under 4.10. I could see staff interpreting the revised > 4.10 language as either allowing anyone with a legitimate IPv6 deployment > need (of any size) to get a /24, or as requiring that such a need be large > enough to justify an entire /24 before an allocation/assignment could be > made. > > Adoption of the draft policy would make clear that any requester who > had an credible > “immediate IPv6 deployment” need (and not met by any other > allocations or assignments) > should receive a /24 allocation. It would not materially change any > organizations ability to > get allocations, but make quite clear the size of any allocations made. > > > Question 2: Would adoption of 2014-22 allow someone who needs, for > example, 75 IPv4 addresses for a NAT-PT or NAT464 pool immediately, growing > to 100 in 1 year (and who would therefore qualify for a /25 under 4.10 > today), to get a /24, or would they not qualify for anything until they > could justify >50% of a /24? > > The organization would qualify for /25 under present policy (presuming > no other IPv4 need > for IPv6 transition purposes is anticipated) and would qualify for a > /24 if draft policy 2014-22 > was adopted. > > I hope this information helps consideration of the draft policy by the > community. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > 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: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
