This is why I think all returns instead should go to the 4.10 IPv4 block
to facilitate IPv6 deployment, since everyone using this block must have
IPv6 in order to receive space from it.
The idea to take this returned space and serve the remaining wait list
with their minimum might be approprate, but after that I agree that we
should be having policies that promote IPv6 instead of just putting it off
into the far future and ignoring it. Currently there is no policy to have
IPv6 in order to receive space from the wait list.
There are suggestions to limit to a /22. Putting all returned space into
the 4.10 block would change that to a /24, or let them pay market rates to
get space if they require more, or are unwilling to have IPv6.
I would also not have a problem with ARIN placing returns into the market
and using the proceeds to reduce the need to raise fees in the future.
While the IPv4 markets are hot right now, there will reach a point in IPv6
adoption when the price curve per IPv4 address will start going down. At
this point, the fraudsters will move onto some other more profitable
activity.
I am also in favor of policies that require those who receive address
space from ARIN by wait list, transfer or otherwise to be required to have
IPv6 addresses, and a plan to move to IPv6. ARIN should be using its
policies to try to get everyone to start using IPv6.
IPv6 is the Future. We need our policies to help make it happen.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 16 May 2019, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 9:27 AM John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
Perhaps, one could say: that both the Marketplace and the Waitlist
are harmful to exist, since they discourage using IPv6 instead
by providing a "tempting solution" to the run-out situation that is not really a
solution --- the registry operating in an abnormal way where a major
set of number resources can only be transferred from existing holders...
not "freshly allocated" likely encourages fraud.
100% IPv6 deployment should alleviate the v4 registry issues
(by eliminating the utility for v4 space) and thus remove
potential incentives for bad actors.
Perhaps it would make sense to have a requirement such
as "Demonstrate matching IPv6 deployment for all previous
allocations, and materialized plans for IPv6 deployment in
all future/applied for allocations" as
A required condition for receiving resources, whether by marketplace
or by wait list.
...
Some have argued that no such policy is needed at all, and ARIN should simply
monetize
the number resources and use the proceeds in a manner aligned with its mission
and
productive to the community, whereas others have indicated that the policy
provides an
important option for smaller ISPs and organizations who may not be aware of
IPv4 runout
and are not readily positioned to go the marketplace. (Neither of these views
supports
the waiting list policy which was suspended, as it served far more than simply
smaller entities.)
John Curran
--
-JH
_______________________________________________
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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
