Replying to just the following part:
> Well, that's another discussion. Newcomers don't have any and cannot do > anything without a minimal IPv4 even if they prefectly deploy IPv6. > Trying to force things only towards IPv6 ignoring the practical side sounds > more like ideology. Any organization which has deployed IPv6 and needs an IPv4 allocation just to access legacy IPv4-only networks can and should acquire that IPv4 allocation using section 4.10, which would be immediate rather than a 3+ year wait. In light of the existence of sections 4.4 and 4.10, the principal purposes for joining the IPv4 waitlist would seem to me to be either: 1) To support an IPv4-only deployment 2) To support or enable a dual stack deployment for situations where using NAT is particularly irritating (i.e. servers) Tyler AS53727 On Wed, 2024-02-21 at 12:46 -0300, Fernando Frediani wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, 12:30 Owen DeLong, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 21, 2024, at 07:20, Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > This rather seems to be a vague assumption as you didn't provide anything > > > substantial for it to be a blocker to have a policy adjusted in order to > > > contemplate only new entrants. > > > Why is it bad ? Do you think it is still rational to keep supplying IP > > > addresses to those who already have some in detriment to those who have > > > nothing ? > > I think any legitimate use of IPv4 addresses is no more or less worthy than > > any other. I see no reason to elevate theoretical new entrants to the point > > of depriving existing legitimate users. > > Oh yes, those who have already can never make a better usage of what they > already have and really justify for more IP addresses (that don't exist) in > detriment of newcomers ? > There are countless ways to always better use of what one already has and it > sounds very unreasonable to continue assigning more addresses to these > organizations in times of exahustion. Need to balance things correctly, face > reality and be reasonable given the current scenario. > > > > IPv4 is an obsolete technology. Preserving an IPv4 free pool against > > legitimate demand to facilitate latecomers and laggards failure to deploy > > IPv6 is simply not in the overall best interests of the internet. > > Well, that's another discussion. Newcomers don't have any and cannot do > anything without a minimal IPv4 even if they prefectly deploy IPv6. > Trying to force things only towards IPv6 ignoring the practical side sounds > more like ideology. > > > > > > This is not unenforceable and just a supposition unsupported by real data. > > > ARIN has means to develop ways to check these newer organizations and > > > separate the possible fraudsters from the legit ones. Just before there it > > > serves to inhibit a lot of organization to even request IPs under the > > > waitlist making it much cleaner and fair. LACNIC has been doing it for > > > years and it has proven to be successful in terms of fairness and > > > possibility to check these organization requests correctly. Are we going > > > to avoid having a policy which is the right thing to do just on the > > > supposition that there will be fraud ? > > > > > > While I stayed that the process in question was morally equivalent to fraud, > > it is 100% legal and utterly indistinguishable from a legitimate new > > entrant. > > > > The policy you are proposing is not only the wrong thing to do (see above), > > it is also quite trivially worked around. One can legitimately spin up an > > organization for a few hundred dollars and a few hours of work. > > That's a theory you have without knowing ARIN tools and possibilities. > Again, it doesn't matter much the theoretical possibilities. There will always > be unlimited. What matters most is to have as a policy what is correct, fair > and in the interest of community. > > It is the interest of community that more organizarions and consequently users > can connect to the Internet, develop new business and make up new technology > and it is fair to think to make things to keep fitting newcomers to this > industry. > > Fernando > > > > ARIN can prevent the recording of that organization’s subsequent acquisition > > in the ARIN database, but that’s about all that ARIN can do. > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > Fernando > > > > > > > > > On 21/02/2024 04:13, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Anyone using IP to conduct business should recognize that IPv4 is out > > > > and they’ll need IPv6 to do business going forward. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I oppose Fernando’s idea that the waitlist should be limited to new > > > > entrants. In addition to being bad policy, this is completely > > > > unenforceable and only leads to widespread workarounds (which are > > > > morally equivalent to fraud but probably don’t quite fit the legal > > > > definition of the term). (The cost to spin up an organization to acquire > > > > resources and then acquire the organization is trivial compared to the > > > > value of the IPv4 resources obtained). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 2024, at 19:28, Denis Motova <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Owen: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I appreciate your thoughtful and constructive suggestion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a couple of factors at play here that I'd like to address > > > > > directly, if possible: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the Existing Waiting List - I'm uncertain about the > > > > > rationale behind altering the current waiting list and applying new > > > > > criteria to members who have already been approved. I believe any new > > > > > policy should not retroactively affect those who have already > > > > > undergone approval. Approved members should continue to receive the > > > > > resources they were initially granted based on their justification > > > > > until such point as new users are added under the new policy (after > > > > > its approval) and its updated distribution methods are implemented. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for the New Policy for Future Applicants - Future applicants may be > > > > > required to select from a /22, /23, or /24 allocation, with the > > > > > decision weighted based on the considerations Owen has mentioned > > > > > regarding the allocation of new resources. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I support the sentiments expressed by Fernando Frediani; there should > > > > > be a reasonable approach that balances the need to avoid impacting the > > > > > size of routing tables while still providing users with the > > > > > flexibility they require to conduct business rather than treating IPs > > > > > as a hobby. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 20 Feb 2024, at 21:53, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Each waitlist recipient specifies a desired block size and a minimum > > > > > > acceptable block size. Wait list recipients can change their minimum > > > > > > acceptable block size at any time so long as it is no shorter than > > > > > > their originally approved block size. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When ARIN receives a block to fulfill a waitlist request, the first > > > > > > waitlister in line with a minimum acceptable block size ≥ the > > > > > > available block size gets it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, let’s say we have the following waitlist: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Party Approved > > > > > > Minimum acceptable > > > > > > > > > > > > A /23 > > > > > > /23 > > > > > > > > > > > > B /22 > > > > > > /23 > > > > > > > > > > > > C /22 > > > > > > /24 > > > > > > > > > > > > D /24 > > > > > > /24 > > > > > > > > > > > > E /22 > > > > > > /23 > > > > > > > > > > > > F /22 > > > > > > /24 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let’s say ARIN receives a /24. The first /24 would go to party C. > > > > > > > > > > > > If ARIN then received another /24, it would go to party D. > > > > > > > > > > > > If ARIN then received a /22, Parties A and B would receive a /23 > > > > > > each. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 2024, at 17:01, Denis Motova <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Scott, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I appreciate the innovative perspective and thorough thought > > > > > > > process you've articulated in your email. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a couple of points I'd like to highlight: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The new policy shouldn’t be retroactive, it should be only a > > > > > > > policy going forward. I mention it only because I think it’s > > > > > > > important to make that distinction clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Secondly, I find your proposed approach in the second paragraph > > > > > > > intriguing. It's far more nuanced than simply restricting everyone > > > > > > > to a maximum of a /24. I believe you're onto something promising > > > > > > > here, and it could serve as a sensible strategy moving forward. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the issue of "time," it's important to acknowledge the > > > > > > > existence of a secondary market for IPs. If there's significant > > > > > > > pressure, purchasing IPs should be considered a viable option > > > > > > > rather than solely relying on expedited access through the waiting > > > > > > > list. Maintaining a balance is key; those with urgent needs can > > > > > > > acquire IPs through purchase, while others can join the waiting > > > > > > > list and adhere to the traditional process. Personally, I believe > > > > > > > this approach strikes a fair and equitable balance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 Feb 2024, at 21:14, Scott Leibrand > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point isn't to "improve the visual appearance of the waiting > > > > > > > > list numbers". Everyone knows the free pool is empty except for > > > > > > > > the reclaimed dregs, and we're deciding who should get how much > > > > > > > > of the dregs. The point of this proposal, limiting the maximum > > > > > > > > allocation to /24, is to allocate smaller netblocks to > > > > > > > > organizations that have been waiting a shorter amount of time, > > > > > > > > instead of making everyone wait longer while those with a non- > > > > > > > > time-sensitive justification for a larger block can get one and > > > > > > > > those who only need a smaller block wait in line longer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another alternative to limiting everyone to a /24 would be to > > > > > > > > prioritize the waitlist such that everyone's place in line is > > > > > > > > determined by how long they've been waiting divided by how many > > > > > > > > /24s they're requesting. So at any given time, we might be > > > > > > > > fulfilling /24 requests that have been waiting 6 months, /23 > > > > > > > > requests that have been waiting a year, and /22 requests that > > > > > > > > have been waiting 2 years. (Or 1, 2, and 4 years, respectively.) > > > > > > > > That way no one is penalized for accepting a smaller block, and > > > > > > > > an organization who can usefully use a /24 now and a /24 later > > > > > > > > gets a /23 worth of space in the same amount of time as someone > > > > > > > > holding out for a contiguous /23. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 12:56 PM Denis Motova > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear William, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I appreciate your message and your input. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some reservations about agreeing with the statement you > > > > > > > > > made, and I'll explain my reasoning below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I strongly believe that there are numerous legitimate > > > > > > > > > businesses currently on the waiting list seeking IP space > > > > > > > > > allocations of /22, /23, and /24. By removing the option for > > > > > > > > > these allocations, we essentially transform the waiting list > > > > > > > > > into what you described in a previous post as catering to > > > > > > > > > "hobbyists and speculators." It's unlikely that any serious > > > > > > > > > company would require only 256 IPs within a network; that's > > > > > > > > > essentially a micro-network. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you are aware, there are multiple avenues for obtaining IP > > > > > > > > > space, including the waiting list and authorized purchase > > > > > > > > > methods. From my perspective, if a business urgently needs IP > > > > > > > > > space, they would likely follow the example of AWS and invest > > > > > > > > > in acquiring the necessary resources rather than wait through > > > > > > > > > the waiting list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For instance, one of our customers acquired a /17 by > > > > > > > > > purchasing it from the market after providing justifications > > > > > > > > > to ARIN for the IP space. While this involved a significant > > > > > > > > > financial investment, it demonstrated the seriousness of their > > > > > > > > > business needs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I fail to see the value in limiting everyone's network size > > > > > > > > > solely to improve the visual appearance of the waiting list > > > > > > > > > numbers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you once again for your collaborative spirit and > > > > > > > > > feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 Feb 2024, at 15:52, William Herrin <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 8:52 AM Denis Motova > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A. Decreasing the allocation to a /24 means that new > > > > > > > > > > > allocation > > > > > > > > > > > holders would receive a minuscule network, hardly > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient for > > > > > > > > > > > small to mid-sized deployments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Denis, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this point, the wait list is for hobbyists and > > > > > > > > > > speculators: people > > > > > > > > > > who can afford to wait, which a serious business cannot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell me I'm wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Bill Herrin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > William Herrin > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > https://bill.herrin.us/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > 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.
