[arin-ppml] Thinking of other options
Alexander, Daniel
Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com
Fri May 16 11:35:09 EDT 2008
- Previous message: [arin-ppml] Comments Received on Proposed Policy Development Process
- Next message: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-17: Last Call
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hello All, In an effort to spur some discussion on ppml, I wanted to offer the thought below. Regardless of whether there is a black market, or a paid transfer policy, it is very difficult to see a sufficient supply of IPv4 resources surface in an IANA depleted model, for the large ISP. This means that the large ISP will hit the wall first, and hit it the hardest. There is no way around the fact that this particular group already needs to be well into their transition plans, because they will be unable to obtain adequate amounts of IPv4 resources, in the foreseeable future. It is also this group who is more able to bear the burden of working with equipment vendors, and software developers, to push the necessary momentum towards IPv6. A preferred model would not be to prolong the availability of IPv4 resources, but rather to make sure all groups have reasonable access to these resources, until sufficient momentum has shifted towards IPv6. It is the largest IP consumers who will drive the vendors, and develop the market for IPv6 enabled equipment. It is the smallest organizations who need to remain on IPv4 until the shift has gained the necessary momentum. Unfortunately, it didn't matter that the teacher provided an extra week to study for the exam. The majority of the students never studied until the night before the test. The reality is the momentum towards IPv6 likely won't happen until after the IANA pool is depleted and the largest IP consumers hit the wall. Considering what has been mentioned so far, a number of possible policies are listed below. The intent of this email is to not focus on any one point, but to take the overall approach into consideration. The main consideration is to solidify how allocations are made to provide a window for those without resources to survive until those with the resources can build the necessary momentum in the marketplace. ===== Pre-IANA Depletion ===== * No paid transfer policy. * Allocation policies continue as they are. Based on need, proving prior utilization. * No more multiple accounts. An organization cannot create an additional orgid if the organization currently holds General Membership. * Legacy space considered. ARIN would look at legacy allocations when considering need for ARIN requested resources. This consideration would exist regardless of whether the legacy resource is associated to an orgid or under RSA. This is not about trying to reclaim any legacy resource. Only in justifying need for an ARIN allocated resource. === ARIN remaining reserve equivilent to a /8 === * Make the maximum allocation a /18. This would continue to serve the needs of 95% of the organizations needing address space. The top 5% of the consuming organizations could still get the max allocation, but would not be able to immediately deplete the remaining pool by being bound to the max window mentioned below. * Make the allocation window minimum six months. No matter the need, an org account cannot get an allocation more frequently than every six months. This would put the largest organizations on the hook first to move to IPv6, while buying time for the smaller orgs whose needs would continue to be met by the current policies. This could also stretch out the remaining IPv4 space for another year, which is not the goal, but allows for the momentum to occur where needed. ============================================ The other thought is that this may not eliminate the need for a paid transfer, but could eliminate a considerable amount of speculation and deaggregation. There is no need to shop around for smaller blocks when the needs of +90% of the market can be served by the Registry through normal allocations. The largest demand would be from the largest providers who would be spending the money for larger aggregates and/or to buy several smaller ones that can be put back together. By isolating the demand from the majority of the organizations, it could potentially play out that the largest organizations create the momentum towards IPv6 before the rest of the IP consumers need to turn to paid transfers. Some could argue that this impedes the larger organizations from equal access to resources, but they would have the same access as everyone else, in an environment of a depleted resource. Dan Alexander Comcast Cable ARIN AC
- Previous message: [arin-ppml] Comments Received on Proposed Policy Development Process
- Next message: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-17: Last Call
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list