I’m dismayed that consultants would do that, but I guess there are no shortage of bad consultants out there.
I’ve been doing effectively SPARK for clients for a long time now (since well before IPv4 runout) and never sent a single client into the leasing realm (despite doing consulting for an IPv4 leasing organization). I’ll wait for the proposal to be published as a draft policy before commenting further. Owen > On Sep 22, 2025, at 20:16, Preston Ursini via ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Greetings all: > > I am seeking community discussion on ARIN-prop-348, the SPARK proposal. SPARK > is intended to create a clear and straightforward entry point for new > organizations needing core Internet number resources. At present, a new > operator must make separate requests for an ASN, IPv4 under section 4.10, and > an IPv6 allocation. Each request has its own requirements, paperwork, and > fees. This complexity has real-world consequences: many small networks end up > turning to consultants who, in practice, often steer them into leasing IPv4 > space instead of working directly with ARIN. That approach not only increases > costs for these new operators but also delays IPv6 deployment. > > SPARK grew out of conversations with and feedback from small network > operators in the community. They want to do things “the right way” but face > too many barriers when first approaching ARIN. By creating a single, bundled > policy path, SPARK would make it far easier for them to start off on solid > footing, with an ASN, a /24 of IPv4 from the transition pool, and an IPv6 > allocation that is sized for growth. > > The benefit of defining SPARK explicitly in the NRPM is that it would give > ARIN staff a clear framework for implementation and provide new operators > with transparency and predictability. It would remove ambiguity, lower entry > costs, and encourage IPv6 adoption from day one. Without a policy like this, > the market incentives push new operators toward leasing arrangements that > solve their immediate IPv4 needs but do nothing to build long-term IPv6 > readiness. > > I may have confused the historic ASN issuance fee with the current transfer > fee when thinking through the costs, which highlights that ARIN’s fee > schedule could be presented more clearly on the website. That is probably > best addressed through the Consultation and Suggestion Process. The policy > question here, however, is whether we should formally establish SPARK as a > new allocation category in the NRPM, how it should be structured, and what > costs should be attached. > > I would greatly appreciate community input on three fronts: where in the NRPM > this category should live, what fee model would be appropriate and fair, and > whether the proposed language around eligibility and resource sizes needs > adjustment. > > Thank you in advance for your thoughts and feedback. > > All the best, > Preston Louis Ursini > _______________________________________________ > 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.
