I kinda agree that we should work toward a post free pool world.
Right now, other than the few lucky people who have obtained resources
from the free pool, microallocations under 4.4 or IPv6 deployment under
4.10 are the only IPv4 resources being allocated under section 4 policy.
The majority of total activity of late is clearly section 8 transfers.
I think our work here should be toward a single policy for all, which
would include the few section 4 allocations, along with the section 8
transfers. Section 4.10's limit is a /28 to a /24, whereas 4.4's limit is
/24 or /23 and the remaining section 8 transfers under discussion can be
from a /27 to a /24.
I would like to see us work toward a single policy used for all of these
cases, with the exact limits used in each case dependent on which section
of the NRPM the person is applying for number resources.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, John Curran wrote:
On 25 Jan 2018, at 8:34 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
….
Note that as a practical matter the ISP would no IPv4 space from
ARIN, but instead go to the waiting list for an uncertain chance at
receiving some resources in the future.
Note as a follow-on for thought - The discussion of free-pool allocation
policy also raises an important issue: specifically, in light of
free-pool depletion, what is the policy purpose of IPv4 free-pool
allocation policy given an active and functional transfer market?
While a waiting list policy that allows for receiving allocations
similar to historical practice has obviously been an important
transitional mechanism (providing a functional alternative at runout
while the market got established and for those who were caught unaware),
its goals at this point are less clear. If the goal is to help those
who lack financial resources with an opportunity to receive resources,
then one would expect entry to the waiting list (and issuance when
available) to be conditioned on same. If the goal is help as many
parties as possible, then allocation of anything other than the minimum
allocation size (/24) would seem ill-advised, as would supporting
additional allocation requests.
It might be worth the community spending some time discussing the
underlying goals of the post-depletion IPv4 allocation policy, as it is
unclear whether its goals meaningfully overlap that of the transfer
policy.
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
