Folks - We’ve had a wonderful time reviewing how we got to the present state, but as Mr. Huberman pointed out, we’re now approaching runout of the IPv4 free pool for the ARIN region, and with this will obviously come an increased need by some parties for IPv4 transfers. The ability of this community to set policy applicable to IPv4 transfers should be taken as basic assumption (and we will certainly keep the community apprised if there should ever be a change in this ability.)
With that in mind, I’d like to challenge the community to consider and clearly state the underlying purpose for having constraints on IPv4 transfers, and how such policy meets ARIN’s mission <https://www.arin.net/about_us/overview.html> or policy development goals <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>. While it is true that our default position on registry policy is that we preserve the status quo until a change is shown to be needed, the unique one-time event of the runout of the IPv4 free pool warrants a fresh statement and review of the purposes that we aim to fulfill via the IPv4 transfer policy. Our current needs-based IPv4 transfer policy is basically derived from the IPv4 allocation policy, and the assumption that the registry should determine those parties who should be issued IPv4 address space. This is very reasonable assumption when the resources are coming from the IPv4 regional free pool, but it is unclear what purpose is fulfilled in making the same determination when the resources are coming from another party. If the community can agree on a common statement of the purpose for the IPv4 transfer policy (which will take active engagement towards trying to understand everyone’s concerns), then it might be possible to lay groundwork for simpler transfer policy for which everyone understands the underlying basis, and thus has an much easier time supporting. So, to start the discussion, what is the underlying need for an IPv4 transfer policy, and why? I will get things going with a potential less-contentious example - it is quite possible that the an IPv4 transfer policy is necessary to insure that blocks that are transferred are of a minimum size. While the ISP community _may_ be capable of dealing with a flood of /30’s suddenly appearing and seeking routing, it is quite unclear if there is any benefit in creating that potential condition, and there is certainly risk to the Internet if ISPs succumb to the customer pressure and route such in large quantity. Can we start with a deliberate reasoned discussion on this one aspect of the IPv4 transfer policy, and if common ground is found, move on to any other perceived transfer policy requirements? 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.
