“However, the implementation of such a restriction could prove problematic; What is a true newcomer? How do we prevent gaming of this restriction?”
And whose responsibility will it be to police this proposed policy change? With regards to gaming the system, because it will happen. I think the current policy should be retained as it is. Orin Roberts From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani Sent: November 14, 2022 7:08 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: [EXT]Re: [arin-ppml] Transferring Waiting List Space - Feedback Requested Good question David, but I don't think that is too hard. If an organization (a legal entity) has any IPv4 blocks assigned to it, regardless of the usage it would not be eligible already and that eliminates the vast majority of cases which sounds good. Any common-traditional new company that has entered into the Internet industry to connect people or provide any type of hosting/cloud services. Of course that would be questions around new companies that belong to the same economic group of another one who has IPv4 space and that needs to be worked out properly. Sometimes when we discuss proposals here I feel that sometimes is wished to foresee absolutely every possible scenario and that is not always possible but it is still a big gain from preventing most of unfair or unnecessary situations. I almost agree that the 60-month restriction is already good to function as indefinite in practice, but a improvement to the mentioned proposal is that it makes impossible to transfer that space received from the waiting list to any other organization and forces it to be returned to ARIN that has the ability to better and more neutral and fairly assign it to someone else in the future when the situation worse. Finally the size of the block received should stay at maximum of /22. As mentioned reducing it would make it useless for most cases, contributes even more to increase the size of the routing tables faster, makes it nearly impossible to do any proper traffic engineering in some situations and it allows these newcomers to come to a minimum size where they can reach cruising speed that they can have financial capability to decide for a necessary transfer or invest in technology that makes better usages of that fewer space they have. Fernando Frediani On 14/11/2022 20:35, David Farmer wrote: Conceptually, as an abstract idea, I have no problem with restricting the waiting list to newcomers only. However, the implementation of such a restriction could prove problematic; What is a true newcomer? How do we prevent gaming of this restriction? The current 60-month restriction on transfers is already functionally indefinite, at least in my option. Finally, the waiting list was never intended as a viable option to meet a network's need for resources; its purpose in policy is to ensure ARIN has a mechanism to distribute any IPv4 resources that are reclaimed or otherwise become available to ARIN. Thanks. On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 5:09 PM Fernando Frediani <mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com> wrote: Then need to detail and analyze what sound unreasonable in changing 5 years period to indefinite. Reducing the request size to anything smaller than an /22 is giving a such small and useless space that will probably make no difference to whoever receives it. A /22 is already a very small amount (almost symbolic) but at least gives the ability to a newer organizations to work with something, get into the market, innovate, reach some proper size and then invest in different technologies to make better usage of few IPv4 and deploy IPv6 properly in order to keep existing in the market. Plus giving out /24-only to organizations in the waiting list would contribute even more to increase the size of the routing table with very little gain. A change in the waiting-list rules that would be certainly be welcome is restrict it only to newcomers that have no IPv4 space at all. Those who already have had already enough time to learn live with what they have and organize themselves to either do IPv4 transfers and deploy IPv6 in order to reduce its dependency whenever possible. Fernando On 14/11/2022 19:53, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML wrote: I reviewed the Policy Implementation and Experience Report presented at ARIN 50; https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN50/materials/1020_policyimplementation.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RruDSG32D0M&list=PL726kQ53RX6i-x05T2JLckh59gWtLs1TR&t=5569s https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN50/day1_transcript/#policy-implementation-and-experience-report I don't support any changes to the transfer provisions of the waiting list. The current transfer provisions seem reasonable to me. However, if I were going to support any changes to the waiting list, I would support reducing the request size from /22 to /24. Thanks. On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 3:42 PM WOOD Alison * DAS <mailto:alison.w...@das.oregon.gov> wrote: Hello! The Policy Experience Report Working Group has been working on the Policy Experience Report from ARIN 50. I would appreciate your feedback on the following issue regarding transferring waitlist space. The current wait list criteria is: • Must have a /20 or less in total IPv4 holdings. • May request up to a /22. • Removed from list if IPv4 received via 8.3/8.4 transfer. • Received ip space is eligible for needs-based transfer after five years. The Policy Experience Working Group would like your feedback on a potential policy that would restrict the transfer of IP space that has been obtained from the waiting list. In other words, any IP address space received from the waiting list would be ineligible for transfer indefinitely and encouraged to be returned to ARIN if not in use. This policy would be specific to transfers and not M & A’s. The working group appreciates your feedback. Thank you! _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact mailto:i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. -- =============================================== David Farmer mailto:email%3afar...@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact mailto: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 (mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact mailto:i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. -- =============================================== David Farmer mailto:email%3afar...@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== _______________________________________________ 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.
