> On Aug 15, 2019, at 14:47, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > It’s hard to predict when the useful IPv4 lifetime will end, so it’s hard to > say whether runout of these reserved pools is unlikely, especially if > conditions change.
If IPv4 continues to plague the internet for another 20+ years, then we have much bigger problems. > > If you feel 4.4 and 4.10 are severely overstocked, maybe a proposal to > release those “sequestered” addresses should be forthcoming, as maintaining > those pools at those levels is counter to our mission? I think what is there is fine. I think adding to them at this point makes little sense. > Do you have any comments on the problem statement, and the idea that the > haphazard and unpredictable influx of addresses into the waiting list is > problematic? For example, doesn’t the current constitution of the waiting > list encourage virtually all ARIN members to enter the lottery for a /22? The > size is small, the justification options pretty generous, the downside > minimal. I don’t agree that it is problematic. I don’t see any problem with a /22 lottery for the patient, frankly. I don’t see it as being any worse than US green card policy. > In my mind the waiting list is a fraud magnet and has outlived its > usefulness, and yes, this is an attempt to eliminate it without going down > the auction route. The addresses haven’t been destroyed, just taken off the > market, adding the tiniest bit to the existing pools, whose size was approved > by the community. I think it was, and yet, we’ve only got good evidence of a single bad actor. I think the recent adjustments to the policy seriously reduce the incentives for fraud and significantly increase the risks of detection. Owen > I support the policy as written and amended. > > Regards, > Mike > > > > From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 5:10 PM > To: WOOD Alison * DAS <[email protected]> > Cc: arin-ppml <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the > 4.10 Reserved Pool > > Really, it seems to me that this proposal is another attempt at eliminating > the waiting list for unmet requests. > > The first attempt (ARIN auctions the space) met with resistance from ARIN’s > legal team (for good reason), so now this attempts to sequester the space > where it will be hard to distribute rather than allowing the waiting list to > have any potential to compete with the transfer market. > > The proposed targets (4.4 and 4.10 pools) are well stocked and unlikely to > run out in any useful IPv4 lifetime. > > As such, restocking them from returned space strikes me as just a way to > sequester this space where it cannot be used. > > IMHO, this is counter to ARIN’s mission and should not be allowed. > > I oppose the policy as written and as proposed to be amended. > > Owen > > > > On Aug 15, 2019, at 13:55 , WOOD Alison * DAS via ARIN-PPML > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you for the continued input on this draft policy proposal. > > I will be updating the text of the draft policy to include both 4.4 and 4.10 > pools. Point of information, the 4.4 pool currently has approximately 391 > /24’s and 4.10 has approximately 15,753 /24’s available and are not estimated > to run out in the next five years. > > Please keep your feedback coming, it is very helpful for the council. > > -Alison > > From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Fernando > Frediani > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:44 AM > To: arin-ppml <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the > 4.10 Reserved Pool > > The point is that you treating IP marketing as something 'natural' or a > 'default route' which it is not and can never be. Natural is to receive some > addresses from the RIR in first place so they are treated as anyone else was > in the past and have a chance to exist in the Internet with same conditions > as all others. From that if they need extra space then fine to seek for > alternative ways. > I don't think a new entrants would automatically qualify for 4.10 in all > cases therefore any space left should be targeted also to them as well to > IPv6 transition and critical infrastructure. Otherwise the community will be > creating an artificial barrier to them in order to favor the IP market while > the RIR still has IPv4 space available for them. > Fernando > On 30/07/2019 10:30, Tom Fantacone wrote: > I would think that the majority of new entrants would need at least some > allocation to help with IPv6 transition and would qualify for addresses from > the 4.10 pool. Depending on what they receive from that pool and when, they > may not qualify for additional waiting list addresses and would have to go to > the transfer market for additional IPv4 space anyway. Those that don't > qualify under 4.10 can still get smaller IPv4 blocks on the transfer market > readily, and the cost for blocks in the /24-/22 range is not prohibitive. > Certainly an organization seeking a small IPv4 block for multi-homing or > other purposes is better off spending a few thousand dollars to purchase a > range than waiting a year on the waiting list to put their plans in motion. > > Note that while RIPE does not have a reserve pool specifically for IPv6 > transition, the expectation of their final /8 policy was to allow new > entrants access to IPv4 to assist in this transition. In reality, it didn't > work out that way and most of the /22 allocations to new LIRs from the final > /8 were to existing organizations who spun up new, related entities in order > to increase their IPv4 holdings: > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/so-long-last-8-and-thanks-for-all-the-allocations > > I'm also sympathetic to new entrants, but don't see the current waiting list > as a great help to them vs. the 4.10 pool or the transfer market, both of > which allow you your allocation in a timely fashion. > > Best Regards, > > Tom Fantacone > > > ---- On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 11:39:32 -0400 Fernando Frediani > <[email protected]> wrote ---- > > I find it interesting the idea of privileging the pool dedicated to > facilitate IPv6 Deployment and I also agree with the comments below in > the sense that it's not very beneficial do most ARIN members due to max > size, /22, cannot be holding more than a /20. > > However one point I couldn't identify is where the new entrants stand in > this new possible scenario ? Will they only be able to apply under the > 4.10 reserved pool ? If so for a access/broadband ISPs may be easier to > fit, but not necessarily for other scenarios and types of ISPs. > Therefore if I didn't miss anything these returned addresses should also > be able to go to new entrants, not only to 4.10 reserved pool conditions. > > Best regards > Fernando Frediani > > On 25/07/2019 17:32, Tom Fantacone wrote: > > I found the wording of the Problem Statement on this one a bit > > confusing. However, after deciphering the effect of the actual policy > > change I support it. > > > > Essentially, all returned IPv4 space will no longer go to the waiting > > list but will supplement the 4.10 reserved pool used to enhance IPv6 > > deployment. This essentially kills off the waiting list. > > > > The recent restrictions placed on the waiting list to reduce fraud > > have hobbled it to the point where it's not very beneficial to most > > ARIN members. (Max size, /22, cannot be holding more than a /20). > > It's essentially only useful to new entrants, but those that go on it > > still have to wait many months to receive their small allocation. If > > they justify need now, but have to wait that long, how critical is > > their need if they're willing to wait that long? Small blocks are not > > terribly expensive and can be quickly gotten on the transfer market. > > I can understand waiting that long for a large block needed for a > > longer term project due to prohibitive cost, but I don't see a great > > benefit to the waiting list as it stands. > > > > Also, if there's any fraud left on the waiting list, this would kill it. > > > > I would hope, however, that if implemented, those currently on the > > waiting list would be grandfathered in. I do think some entities with > > legitimate need got burned on the last change made to the waiting list. > > > > At 04:05 PM 7/23/2019, ARIN wrote: > >> On 18 July 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > >> "ARIN-prop-276: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool" as a > >> Draft Policy. > >> > >> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17 is below and can be found at: > >> > >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_17/ > >> > >> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will > >> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this > >> draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource > >> policy as stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). > >> Specifically, these principles are: > >> > >> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > >> * Technically Sound > >> * Supported by the Community > >> > >> The PDP can be found at: > >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ > >> > >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Sean Hopkins > >> Policy Analyst > >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > >> > >> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool > >> > >> Problem Statement: > >> > >> An inconsistent and unpredictable stream of address space is an > >> unsuitable method of populating the waiting list (4.1.8.1) and > >> fulfilling subsequent requests. > >> > >> Policy statement: > >> > >> Change "4.10. Dedicated IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment" to > >> "4.10 Dedicated IPv4 Pool to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment" > >> > >> Change" When ARIN receives its last /8 IPv4 allocation from IANA, a > >> contiguous /10 IPv4 block will be set aside and dedicated to > >> facilitate IPv6 deployment. Allocations and assignments from this > >> block " to "In addition to the contiguous /10 IPv4 block set aside > >> and dedicated to facilitate IPv6 deployment, all returns and > >> revocations of IPv4 blocks will be added to the pool of space > >> dedicated to the facilitation of IPv6 deployment. Allocations and > >> assignments from this pool " > >> > >> Change "This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of > >> /28 and a maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse > >> allocation when possible within that /10 block." to "This pool will > >> be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a maximum sized > >> allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when possible > >> within the pool." > >> > >> Comments: > >> > >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
