Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests

[Michael B. Williams via ARIN-PPML]

Agreed, Brian.

--

*Michael B. Williams*
Glexia, Inc. - An IT Company
USA Direct: +1 978 477 6797
USA Toll Free: +1 800 675 0297 x101
AUS Direct: +61 3 8594 2265
AUS Toll Free: +61 1800 931 724 x101
Fax: +1.815-301-5570
michael.willi...@glexia.com
https://www.glexia.com/
https://www.glexia.com.au/

*Legal Notice:*
The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's
confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely
for the addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by
anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be
taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.



On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 3:50 PM Brian Jones  wrote:

> With the clarification that organizations will be removed from the waiting
> list if they receive an allocation for facilitating their IPv6 deployment,
> I no longer support this proposal for the reasons outlined by the ARIN
> staff below. My organization will not be impacted by this but I can
> understand where some could be detrimentally effected by this change.
> Receiving an allocation for deploying IPv6 should not be tied to the
> waiting list for a regular IPv4 assignment IMO.
>
> --
> Brian E Jones, CSP-SM, CSP-PO
> NI Virginia Tech
> bjo...@vt.edu
>
> On Jul 30, 2019, at 1:33 PM, Kat Hunter  wrote:
>
> All- Staff and legal review has been completed for 2019-9. Please take a
> moment to review the comments. For those that supported this, do you still
> support the policy given the staff notes. Additionally, we'd like to hear
> from anyone that this may impact in a negative way.
>
> Policy: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/
> Staff and Legal Review
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/#slr
>
> "ARIN Staff Comments
>
> This policy could be implemented as written. Current policy is that any
> organization on the waiting list that receives IPv4 addresses through a
> transfer are removed from the waiting list, but those receiving an NRPM
> 4.10 (Dedicated IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment) assignment are
> not removed from the waiting list. The proposed change would result those
> organizations receiving an NRPM 4.10 assignment also being removed from the
> waiting list.
>
> Staff notes that adding the “…or an allocation request fulfilled under
> Section 4.10…” may be detrimental to some organizations, as address space
> received per NRPM 4.10 must be used in a manner consistent with IPv6
> translation services and cannot be used for other purposes such as customer
> assignments, shared hosting services, etc.
>
> Organizations need IPv4 address space to assign to their customers, and
> many organizations will request a block from the Waiting List to be used
> for their customer assignments but still need some IPv4 space for
> deployment of IPv6 translation services as outlined in section NRPM 4.10.
> Removing organizations from the Waiting List when they receive a NRPM 4.10
> assignment would hinder the existing IPv4 operations & growth of
> organizations, and may provide a disincentive to IPv6 deployment."
>
>
>
> -Kat Hunter
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:42 PM Brian Jones  wrote:
>
>> I support this revised version of draft policy ARIN-2019-9 as written.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:44 PM ARIN  wrote:
>>
>>> The following has been revised:
>>>
>>> * Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6
>>> Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
>>>
>>> Revised text is below and can be found at:
>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/
>>>
>>> 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-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6
>>> Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
>>>
>>> Problem Statement:
>>>
>>> It has been observed that an organization requesting IPv4 resources
>>> under NRPM Section 4.10, Dedicated IPv4 Block To Facilitate IPv6
>>> Deployment, can also request similar or the same resources under Section
>>> 4.2.1.8, Unmet Needs. This proposal aims to remove this potential for
>>> duplicate requests under 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests

[Fernando Frediani]

I also don't believe this is a good change to be made for the same 
reasons outlines by staff, therefore I can't support it as well


Thanks
Fernando

On 30/07/2019 16:49, Brian Jones wrote:
With the clarification that organizations will be removed from the 
waiting list if they receive an allocation for facilitating their IPv6 
deployment, I no longer support this proposal for the reasons outlined 
by the ARIN staff below. My organization will not be impacted by this 
but I can understand where some could be detrimentally effected by 
this change. Receiving an allocation for deploying IPv6 should not be 
tied to the waiting list for a regular IPv4 assignment IMO.


--
Brian E Jones, CSP-SM, CSP-PO
NI Virginia Tech
bjo...@vt.edu 

On Jul 30, 2019, at 1:33 PM, Kat Hunter > wrote:


All- Staff and legal review has been completed for 2019-9. Please 
take a moment to review the comments. For those that supported this, 
do you still support the policy given the staff notes. Additionally, 
we'd like to hear from anyone that this may impact in a negative way.


Policy: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/
Staff and Legal Review 
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/#slr


"ARIN Staff Comments

This policy could be implemented as written. Current policy is that 
any organization on the waiting list that receives IPv4 addresses 
through a transfer are removed from the waiting list, but those 
receiving an NRPM 4.10 (Dedicated IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 
Deployment) assignment are not removed from the waiting list. The 
proposed change would result those organizations receiving an NRPM 
4.10 assignment also being removed from the waiting list.


Staff notes that adding the “…or an allocation request fulfilled 
under Section 4.10…” may be detrimental to some organizations, as 
address space received per NRPM 4.10 must be used in a manner 
consistent with IPv6 translation services and cannot be used for 
other purposes such as customer assignments, shared hosting services, 
etc.


Organizations need IPv4 address space to assign to their customers, 
and many organizations will request a block from the Waiting List to 
be used for their customer assignments but still need some IPv4 space 
for deployment of IPv6 translation services as outlined in section 
NRPM 4.10. Removing organizations from the Waiting List when they 
receive a NRPM 4.10 assignment would hinder the existing IPv4 
operations & growth of organizations, and may provide a disincentive 
to IPv6 deployment."




-Kat Hunter


On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:42 PM Brian Jones > wrote:


I support this revised version of draft policy ARIN-2019-9 as
written.

Brian


On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:44 PM ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>> wrote:

The following has been revised:

* Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM
4.10 IPv6
Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests

Revised text is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/

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-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM
4.10 IPv6
Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests

Problem Statement:

It has been observed that an organization requesting IPv4
resources
under NRPM Section 4.10, Dedicated IPv4 Block To Facilitate IPv6
Deployment, can also request similar or the same resources
under Section
4.2.1.8, Unmet Needs. This proposal aims to remove this
potential for
duplicate requests under these sections.

Policy Statement:

Section 4.1.8.2, Unmet Needs:

Current language: Any requests met through a transfer will be
considered
fulfilled and removed from the waiting list.

Proposed language:

Any requests met through a transfer or an allocation request
fulfilled
under Section 4.10 will be considered fulfilled and removed
from the
waiting 

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy proposal 2019-9

[Michael Williams via ARIN-PPML]

t; >> 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-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6
> >> Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
> >>
> >> Problem Statement:
> >>
> >> It has been observed that an organization requesting IPv4 resources
> >> under NRPM Section 4.10, Dedicated IPv4 Block To Facilitate IPv6
> >> Deployment, can also request similar or the same resources under Section
> >> 4.2.1.8, Unmet Needs. This proposal aims to remove this potential for
> >> duplicate requests under these sections.
> >>
> >> Policy Statement:
> >>
> >> Section 4.1.8.2, Unmet Needs:
> >>
> >> Current language: Any requests met through a transfer will be considered
> >> fulfilled and removed from the waiting list.
> >>
> >> Proposed language:
> >>
> >> Any requests met through a transfer or an allocation request fulfilled
> >> under Section 4.10 will be considered fulfilled and removed from the
> >> waiting list.
> >>
> >> Timetable for Implementation: Immediate
> >>
> >> Anything Else:
> >>
> >> Currently, organizations can receive no more than a /24 at a time under
> >> Section 4.10. However, Proposal ARIN-PROP-266, submitted by Chris Tacit
> >> and myself, could potentially allow an org to receive up to a /21 under
> >> that section, widening the potential for abuse by ?double-dipping?
> >> waiting list and transition space requests. As such, this proposal
> >> should be considered in that context.
> >> ___
> >> ARIN-PPML
> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >>
> > ___
> > ARIN-PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190730/92058f5f/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:49:56 -0400
> From: Brian Jones 
> To: Kat Hunter , ARIN-PPML 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify
> Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and
> NRPM
> 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> With the clarification that organizations will be removed from the waiting
> list if they receive an allocation for facilitating their IPv6 deployment,
> I no longer support this proposal for the reasons outlined by the ARIN
> staff below. My organization will not be impacted by this but I can
> understand where some could be detrimentally effected by this change.
> Receiving an allocation for deploying IPv6 should not be tied to the
> waiting list for a regular IPv4 assignment IMO.
>
> --
> Brian E Jones, CSP-SM, CSP-PO
> NI Virginia Tech
> bjo...@vt.edu
>
> > On Jul 30, 2019, at 1:33 PM, Kat Hunter  wrote:
> >
> > All- Staff and legal review has been completed for 2019-9. Please take a
> moment to review the comments. For those that supported this, do you still
> support the policy given the staff notes. Additionally, we'd like to hear
> from anyone that this may impact in a negative way.
> >
> > Policy: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/ <
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/>
> > Staff and Legal Review
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/#slr <
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/#slr>
> >
> > "ARIN Staff Comments
> >
> > This policy could be implemented

[arin-ppml] Policy proposal 2019-9

[Rudolph Daniel]

arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Sean Hopkins
> >> Policy Analyst
> >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6
> >> Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
> >>
> >> Problem Statement:
> >>
> >> It has been observed that an organization requesting IPv4 resources
> >> under NRPM Section 4.10, Dedicated IPv4 Block To Facilitate IPv6
> >> Deployment, can also request similar or the same resources under Section
> >> 4.2.1.8, Unmet Needs. This proposal aims to remove this potential for
> >> duplicate requests under these sections.
> >>
> >> Policy Statement:
> >>
> >> Section 4.1.8.2, Unmet Needs:
> >>
> >> Current language: Any requests met through a transfer will be considered
> >> fulfilled and removed from the waiting list.
> >>
> >> Proposed language:
> >>
> >> Any requests met through a transfer or an allocation request fulfilled
> >> under Section 4.10 will be considered fulfilled and removed from the
> >> waiting list.
> >>
> >> Timetable for Implementation: Immediate
> >>
> >> Anything Else:
> >>
> >> Currently, organizations can receive no more than a /24 at a time under
> >> Section 4.10. However, Proposal ARIN-PROP-266, submitted by Chris Tacit
> >> and myself, could potentially allow an org to receive up to a /21 under
> >> that section, widening the potential for abuse by ?double-dipping?
> >> waiting list and transition space requests. As such, this proposal
> >> should be considered in that context.
> >> ___
> >> ARIN-PPML
> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >>
> > ___
> > ARIN-PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190730/92058f5f/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:49:56 -0400
> From: Brian Jones 
> To: Kat Hunter , ARIN-PPML 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify
> Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and
> NRPM
> 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> With the clarification that organizations will be removed from the waiting
> list if they receive an allocation for facilitating their IPv6 deployment,
> I no longer support this proposal for the reasons outlined by the ARIN
> staff below. My organization will not be impacted by this but I can
> understand where some could be detrimentally effected by this change.
> Receiving an allocation for deploying IPv6 should not be tied to the
> waiting list for a regular IPv4 assignment IMO.
>
> --
> Brian E Jones, CSP-SM, CSP-PO
> NI Virginia Tech
> bjo...@vt.edu
>
> > On Jul 30, 2019, at 1:33 PM, Kat Hunter  wrote:
> >
> > All- Staff and legal review has been completed for 2019-9. Please take a
> moment to review the comments. For those that supported this, do you still
> support the policy given the staff notes. Additionally, we'd like to hear
> from anyone that this may impact in a negative way.
> >
> > Policy: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/ <
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/>
> > Staff and Legal Review
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/#slr <
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/#slr>
> >
> > "ARIN Staff Comments
> >
> > This policy could be implemented as written. Current policy is that any
> organization on the waiting list that receives IPv4 addresses t

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests

[Brian Jones]

With the clarification that organizations will be removed from the waiting list 
if they receive an allocation for facilitating their IPv6 deployment, I no 
longer support this proposal for the reasons outlined by the ARIN staff below. 
My organization will not be impacted by this but I can understand where some 
could be detrimentally effected by this change. Receiving an allocation for 
deploying IPv6 should not be tied to the waiting list for a regular IPv4 
assignment IMO.

--
Brian E Jones, CSP-SM, CSP-PO
NI Virginia Tech
bjo...@vt.edu

> On Jul 30, 2019, at 1:33 PM, Kat Hunter  wrote:
> 
> All- Staff and legal review has been completed for 2019-9. Please take a 
> moment to review the comments. For those that supported this, do you still 
> support the policy given the staff notes. Additionally, we'd like to hear 
> from anyone that this may impact in a negative way. 
> 
> Policy: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/ 
> 
> Staff and Legal Review 
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/#slr 
>  
> 
> "ARIN Staff Comments
> 
> This policy could be implemented as written. Current policy is that any 
> organization on the waiting list that receives IPv4 addresses through a 
> transfer are removed from the waiting list, but those receiving an NRPM 4.10 
> (Dedicated IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment) assignment are not 
> removed from the waiting list. The proposed change would result those 
> organizations receiving an NRPM 4.10 assignment also being removed from the 
> waiting list.
> 
> Staff notes that adding the “…or an allocation request fulfilled under 
> Section 4.10…” may be detrimental to some organizations, as address space 
> received per NRPM 4.10 must be used in a manner consistent with IPv6 
> translation services and cannot be used for other purposes such as customer 
> assignments, shared hosting services, etc.
> 
> Organizations need IPv4 address space to assign to their customers, and many 
> organizations will request a block from the Waiting List to be used for their 
> customer assignments but still need some IPv4 space for deployment of IPv6 
> translation services as outlined in section NRPM 4.10. Removing organizations 
> from the Waiting List when they receive a NRPM 4.10 assignment would hinder 
> the existing IPv4 operations & growth of organizations, and may provide a 
> disincentive to IPv6 deployment."
> 
> 
> 
> -Kat Hunter 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:42 PM Brian Jones  > wrote:
> I support this revised version of draft policy ARIN-2019-9 as written. 
> 
> Brian 
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:44 PM ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>> 
> wrote:
> The following has been revised:
> 
> * Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 
> Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
> 
> Revised text is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/ 
> 
> 
> 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-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 
> Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
> 
> Problem Statement:
> 
> It has been observed that an organization requesting IPv4 resources 
> under NRPM Section 4.10, Dedicated IPv4 Block To Facilitate IPv6 
> Deployment, can also request similar or the same resources under Section 
> 4.2.1.8, Unmet Needs. This proposal aims to remove this potential for 
> duplicate requests under these sections.
> 
> Policy Statement:
> 
> Section 4.1.8.2, Unmet Needs:
> 
> Current language: Any requests met through a transfer will be considered 
> fulfilled and removed from the waiting list.
> 
> Proposed language:
> 
> Any requests met through a transfer or an allocation request fulfilled 
> under Section 4.10 will be considered fulfilled and removed from the 
> waiting list.
> 
> Timetable for Implementation: Immediate
> 
> Anything Else:
> 
> Currently, organizations can receive no more than a /24 at a time under 
> 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests

[Kat Hunter]

All- Staff and legal review has been completed for 2019-9. Please take a
moment to review the comments. For those that supported this, do you still
support the policy given the staff notes. Additionally, we'd like to hear
from anyone that this may impact in a negative way.

Policy: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/
Staff and Legal Review
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/#slr

"ARIN Staff Comments

This policy could be implemented as written. Current policy is that any
organization on the waiting list that receives IPv4 addresses through a
transfer are removed from the waiting list, but those receiving an NRPM
4.10 (Dedicated IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment) assignment are
not removed from the waiting list. The proposed change would result those
organizations receiving an NRPM 4.10 assignment also being removed from the
waiting list.

Staff notes that adding the “…or an allocation request fulfilled under
Section 4.10…” may be detrimental to some organizations, as address space
received per NRPM 4.10 must be used in a manner consistent with IPv6
translation services and cannot be used for other purposes such as customer
assignments, shared hosting services, etc.

Organizations need IPv4 address space to assign to their customers, and
many organizations will request a block from the Waiting List to be used
for their customer assignments but still need some IPv4 space for
deployment of IPv6 translation services as outlined in section NRPM 4.10.
Removing organizations from the Waiting List when they receive a NRPM 4.10
assignment would hinder the existing IPv4 operations & growth of
organizations, and may provide a disincentive to IPv6 deployment."



-Kat Hunter


On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:42 PM Brian Jones  wrote:

> I support this revised version of draft policy ARIN-2019-9 as written.
>
> Brian
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:44 PM ARIN  wrote:
>
>> The following has been revised:
>>
>> * Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6
>> Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
>>
>> Revised text is below and can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/
>>
>> 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-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6
>> Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
>>
>> Problem Statement:
>>
>> It has been observed that an organization requesting IPv4 resources
>> under NRPM Section 4.10, Dedicated IPv4 Block To Facilitate IPv6
>> Deployment, can also request similar or the same resources under Section
>> 4.2.1.8, Unmet Needs. This proposal aims to remove this potential for
>> duplicate requests under these sections.
>>
>> Policy Statement:
>>
>> Section 4.1.8.2, Unmet Needs:
>>
>> Current language: Any requests met through a transfer will be considered
>> fulfilled and removed from the waiting list.
>>
>> Proposed language:
>>
>> Any requests met through a transfer or an allocation request fulfilled
>> under Section 4.10 will be considered fulfilled and removed from the
>> waiting list.
>>
>> Timetable for Implementation: Immediate
>>
>> Anything Else:
>>
>> Currently, organizations can receive no more than a /24 at a time under
>> Section 4.10. However, Proposal ARIN-PROP-266, submitted by Chris Tacit
>> and myself, could potentially allow an org to receive up to a /21 under
>> that section, widening the potential for abuse by “double-dipping”
>> waiting list and transition space requests. As such, this proposal
>> should be considered in that context.
>> ___
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
> ___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact 

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool

[Fernando Frediani]

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 
mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>>* 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool

[Tom Fantacone]

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 
 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