That's not a lease, in the sense that's of concern. "Downstream" implies
a connection. Let's call that "rent".
ISPs "rent" IP blocks all the time - even for their own customers.
$10/mo for a static IP address instead of a DHCP assigned one - a
practice as old as the hills.
And
What if the registrant issues the addresses to downstream BGP customers?
Owen
> On Jun 20, 2023, at 15:16, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 8:54 AM ARIN wrote:
>> Address space distributed from the waitlist will not be eligible for lease
>> or transfer, with the exception
So even if we go with 40 allocations per year, we have approximately 7
years of runtime in the current pool. Which is approximately the maximum
allocations in any year in the last 6 years and nearly double the average
for the same 6 years.
Given that analysis, I’m not inclined to require any IXP
In my experience many small resource holders have their upstreams announce
their blocks so they don't need their own BGP connection.
For example enterprises that like the freedom to shop around for ISPs without
renumbering.
I am opposed to this policy as the existing waiting-list guard-rails
As an IXP participant, +1 to continuing to allocate IXPs /24s upon request
whenever doing so will mean IXP participants don’t have to subsequently
renumber. But for IXPs with no credible plans to need a /24, no objections to
allocating a smaller block by default.
Scott
> On Jun 20, 2023, at
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 8:54 AM ARIN wrote:
> Address space distributed from the waitlist will not be eligible for lease
> or transfer, with the exception of Section 8.2 transfers, for a period of 60
> months.
Fuzzy language. What is leasing? Suggest something more like:
"If announced on the
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 8:54 AM ARIN wrote:
> ARIN will make IPv4 micro-allocations to critical infrastructure providers of
> the Internet, including public internet exchange points (IXPs), core DNS
> service providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root and ccTLD operators) as well as
> the RIRs and
David,
For the number of /24s issued under NRPM 4.4 since 2018, we have the following
stats (2023 data is year to date):
2018 – 18 /24s
2019 – 15 /24s
2020 – 21 /24s
2021 – 18 /24s
2022 – 39 /24s
2023 – 17 /24s
Total currently remaining (as of 31 May 2023) in that reserved pool: 284 /24s
If
That’s why, if you go back through the original policy discussion record re:
IXP and infra pool(AFAIRI), the understanding was a /15 was “it” since we
compromised for a) all the new gTLD’s that came (and then which many WENT) and
b) an expected (and realized) influx of new IXPs to complete
Regardless of whether this will break anything or not, IMHO, it is yet another
(futile) effort at rearranging the IPv4 deck chairs.
I see little to no benefit to the community from doing this.
The only policy goal it will advance is that of creating the perception that
IPv4 can last even
Direct network services are not defined either and I can think of numerous “fig
leaf” solutions to work around that language.
Owen
> On Jun 20, 2023, at 10:53, Andrew Dul wrote:
>
> Leasing is not currently defined in the NRPM. Perhaps we should define
> behavior that we wish to restrict
BTW, fundamentally they are “right”. What is missing is the usefulness of a
routable prefix in using it to a) service multiple IXPs in a region and b)
provide network services to them using it. Consider a region where you could
have five or six nonprofits cooperating via a 501(c)6. The 501 is
Forwarded this on to the North American and Canadian IXP Slack channels.
Speaking for myself
I’m not in support of this. The three connection minimum has worked well for
years. The utilization of the pool is also pleasing. RIPE or PDB doesn’t speak
for IXP operators in North America. And we
Indeed, we therefore have to define priorities of allocations for the
depleted IPv4 pool.
I wanted to point out that if the community believed that sticking with
the /24 allocations is best for IXPs then it appears we have sufficient
resources to do so into the future. At the present time
Maybe we need to put it in context..
We want to stop those companies that apply for space, 'rent it out' to
spammers who want clean IP space, then call it 100% utilization, so they
can apply for more space, all the time creating an asset base of IPs for
investment purposes..
But we want the
Leasing is not currently defined in the NRPM. Perhaps we should define
behavior that we wish to restrict in terms that are already defined or
are less ambiguous in this community.
Perhaps replace the words "for lease" with "reassignment to another
organization without direct network
Andrew - You are correct that the micro-allocation pool can be replenished as
needed from returned allocations. That said, it should be noted that IPv4
allocations used for this purpose would be resources that, under current
policy, would have presumably been allocated to organizations via the
Before making a judgment on this policy, I would like to know how
Micro-Allocations for IXPs have been made by ARIN in each of the last 6
years. Why 6 years? It’s twice the 3-years window of the replenishment
policy.
How much of the pool that is left is helpful to know. However, without also
I'd also like to point out that we already have a method for refilling
the IXP pool as needed. The current policy states that ARIN should
maintain at least a 3 year supply for these reserved pools and so far it
would also seem that the returns to ARIN appear to be sufficient to add
to the
The policy properly differentiates between allocations for IXPs which do
NOT need global reachability and allocations which do - however it
places a too-onerous restriction on the initial allocation:
4.4.1 Micro-allocations for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)
An IXP requesting an initial
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:56 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
> It’s an interesting idea, but thinking it through just a little, does the
> community or ARIN actually benefit from tis in any meaningful way?
>
We ensure that the waitlist really is used consistent to policy. Making it
complaint based
Speaking as the proposal author: It appears that a URL included in the draft
language has been inadvertently eaten by formatting. The Statistics & Reporting
link is here:
https://www.arin.net/reference/research/statistics/#ipv4-reserved-pool-status-nrpm-4-10-ipv6-deployments
I’ll also note
Hi Owen,
It sounds as though your opposition to this draft policy includes a
concern that it is not technically sound.
In what ways do you believe that this change would break the Internet or
contort it?
Thanks,
Matthew
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 9:45 AM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <
It’s an interesting idea, but thinking it through just a little, does the
community or ARIN actually benefit from tis in any meaningful way?
I couldn’t come up with any benefit myself, but I often get accused of lacking
imagination.
Owen
> On Jun 20, 2023, at 09:51, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
Not to be pedantic, but I’m pretty sure my desktop still says “Renew DHCP
lease”. Some ISPs offer additional addresses under a services agreement or
license which would be my go to to work around this policy. Different legal
terms, same effect. I’m not in favor, it seems un police-able.
Other than provider independent addresses (direct assignments from an RIR),
virtually all IP addresses are intended for some form of leasing.
Traditionally, this has been a model of leasing which inherently came with
services which included the delivering of packets.
As written, this policy
We’re 12 years past IANA runout and only 50% of this reservation has been
depleted.
Seems to me that things are working as intended.
There is no plan or expectation that n IPv4 free pool will last indefinitely
into the future, nor should we be making attempts to do so on any level.
I oppose
Is leasing defined anywhere in the NRPM? How would this be enforced? Is the
intent to disallow all reassignments? To get ARIN into the business of
inspecting customer contracts and network configs to see if there is a bona
fide connectivity relationship vs. a fig-leaf one? Something else?
On 15 June 2023, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted “ARIN-prop-321:
Amendment of the waitlist agreement to include a restriction on leasing” as a
Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2023-3 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2023_3
You are
On 15 June 2023, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted “ARIN-prop-320: /26
initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs” as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2023_2
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on
In accordance with the Policy Development Process (PDP), the Advisory Council
met on 15 June 2023.
The AC has advanced the following to Draft Policy status (will be posted
separately for discussion):
* ARIN-prop-320: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs
* ARIN-prop-321: Amendment of the
31 matches
Mail list logo
