Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:20 AM ARIN wrote: > * ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation Hello, I would still prefer to see the waitlist eliminated. I just don't see a way to make its presence in the overall market fair or equitable. Instead of a waitlist, ARIN should offer reclaimed

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

I figure I'll chime in with my opinion. The number 1 priority for remaining IPv4 addresses should be to enable the transition to IPv6. NRPM Section 4.10 already covers this well, and should that pool of addresses get in danger of being depleted, Section 4.1.7 gives this pool priority over general

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

Gents, Permit me to contribute my perspective once more and express my personal stance on the matter, hoping for minimal resistance: I firmly believe that the current waiting list process is equitable and just. It affords every individual an equal opportunity to procure IPv4 space, regardless

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

> On Feb 22, 2024, at 07:17, Fernando Frediani wrote: > >  >> On 22/02/2024 02:14, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> Yes, YOU made those decisions for YOUR network. Now you are trying to force >> those decisions (specifically deployment of CGNAT) onto others through >> policy. No sale here. > >

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

> On Feb 21, 2024, at 15:34, Fernando Frediani wrote: > > On 21/02/2024 20:16, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> This is LACNIC waiting list which has always assigned *only to new >>> entrants*. It is currently easily on 5 years wait time. Is this still to >>> vague ? >>> >>>

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

> On Feb 21, 2024, at 10:09, Fernando Frediani wrote: > > Hi > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, 14:09 Owen DeLong, > wrote: >> >> >> >> As the old saying goes… a bird in the hand. >> >> Existing users have a track record and a current documented need if they are >>

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

Fernando, On Feb 21, 2024, at 7:46 AM, Fernando Frediani wrote: > On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, 12:30 Owen DeLong, > wrote: >> 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

> On Feb 21, 2024, at 08:46, Michael Peddemors wrote: > > Owen, I don't think these statements about IPv4 being obsolete help the > conversation, it is an opinion, and inflammatory.. While I get that > 'advocates' of IPv6 want to do whatever it takes to force a worldwide change, > the

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

Owen, I don't think these statements about IPv4 being obsolete help the conversation, it is an opinion, and inflammatory.. While I get that 'advocates' of IPv6 want to do whatever it takes to force a worldwide change, the death of IPv4 has been heralded for almost 20 years.. but.. IPv4 is

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

On Feb 21, 2024, at 07:20, Fernando Frediani 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 ?

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

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,

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 8:52 AM Denis Motova 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:

[arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

The following Draft Policy has been revised: * ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation Revised text is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2023_8 You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate the