[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves

[Seth Mattinen]

David Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:27:13AM -0500, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
>> On
>>> Behalf Of David Williamson
>>>
>>> Some small orgs may
>>> need an additional allocation/assignment in order to get through the
>>> transition.
>> True. But the same applies to any organization. In the proposal, there
>> is no clear rationale as to why small orgs should be privileged in this
>> end game over large orgs. The proposer needs to clarify their rationale,
>> is it based entirely on distributional equity or some other
>> consideration? 
> 
> Large orgs will also need transition space, yes.  The flip side of that
> is that orgs who presently have been assigned more than a /12 in
> aggregate can probably come up with transition space without too much
> pain.  Someone holding an aggregate /22 probably cannot.
> 
> While we're talking about transition, it seems to me that handing out a
> /22 to an org wishing to provide a NAT-PT gateway (for example) is a
> bit foolish.  We should hand them the space they need, which is
> probably a /26 or longer.  That would provide for transitional space
> for many more orgs, both existing and new, of any size.  (Before someone
> screams about the present unroutability of such long networks, please
> read NRPM section 4.1.1.  It's not ARIN's problem - good stewardship of
> the number resources is.)
> 

Might not be ARIN's problem, but it's foolish to think one is being 
useful by handing out useless resources. Verizon already refuses to 
accept BGP announcements for anything smaller than an IPv6 /32.

~Seth