[arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 4/15/2013 2:38 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:43 AM, "Tim St. Pierre" <tim at communicatefreely.net> wrote:
>>> Now we have a running network, with real customers, and we need IPv4
>>> allocations, since running IPv6 only for retail Internet is a bit
>>> problematic.  We tried to get a /24 out of our upstream, but they are
>>> essentially out of address space and can't give us any.  They can't get
>>> any more either, because they just got taken over by a larger carrier
>>> that has free pools, but on a different AS.
>>>
>>> We do have another upstream that we could connect to, but they can't
>>> give us anything more than a /28 either.
>>>
>>> I applied for a /22 under the immediate need category, but I don't
>>> qualify, since I can really only use about 2/3 of it within 30 days.
> Hi Tim,
>
> If an IPv4 address market is going to work *at all* then it will work
> for this situation.

Well, the IPv4 market won't work if we enforce the same needs rules on 
transfers as we do on new allocations.


>   It looks like you drew the short straw and get to
> be the guinea pig. Find someone with a /24 willing to sell and acquire
> it under NRPM 8.3. And document the heck out of the process so that
> your experience can guide the next policy changes around the IPv4
> market concept.

If he went to the transfer market, he'd want to get at least a /22 and 
probably a lot more (so that he doesn't need to take the risk of going 
back repeatedly). But the stupid thing is that ARIN's rules that keep 
him from getting a /22 from ARIN also disqualify him from being a 
transfer recipient for enough space for justify raising the money to buy 
space.

Matthew Kaufman