[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF
sleibrand at internap.com
Fri Mar 7 19:29:59 EST 2008
David Conrad wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> Rather, I'd like to require A to get a large enough block up front to
>> meet their needs for 6-12+ months, thereby reducing the amount of
>> deaggregation and the externality effects on the rest of the
>> Internet. (And if they really can't afford 6 months of space, they
>> can always lease PA space from their ISP or another LIR.)
> Assuming they can find it. You presume there are options available to
> organization A that I'm somewhat skeptical will actually exist. There
> will always be incentive to minimize the number of number of blocks
> being announced if you have to go out and find those blocks and then
> convince your ISP(s) to actually route them so if folk are having to go
> find address space, they're presumably doing it for a good reason.
Yes, I do think that once the market gets started (shortly after IANA
exhaustion), transferors will begin offering blocks of every size.
If/when those blocks get transferred, additional blocks will be offered.
I don't foresee supply drying up: there should always be blocks
available at a price that's not too different (on a per-IP basis)
between different block sizes.
In order to make sure this happens, we do need to allow some level of
deaggregation of offered netblocks down to the size level demanded by
new entrants. I think we could simply allow deaggregation by
transferors, and keep the 6-month-supply restriction on transferees.
Others feel that this would result in excessive deaggregation at the
beginning, and would leave too few larger blocks later on. As a
compromise, the 1.1 draft gives ARIN discretion to gradually adjust the
level of deaggregation permitted, to ensure that blocks of all sizes are
always available at comparable prices.
> I suppose we'll see.
Yes, we definitely will, and can adjust policy later as needed, but
hopefully we can also foresee enough to put decent policy in place
before free pool exhaustion.
>> Can you identify which restrictions are onerous and would force people
>> to go elsewhere? We just submitted version 1.1 (which should be
>> posted to PPML today), which allows deaggregation of transfered blocks
>> to the level required to ensure adequate supply at smaller block sizes.
> Will review and comment, hopefully by Monday,
> but I would point out that
> people go to the purely black market today so the restrictions folks
> face today would appear to be too onerous. Adding vast tracts of new
> regulation would seem likely to increase the number of folks forced into
> the black market.
We seem to be operating off different assumptions here. As far as I can
tell the level of black market transfers today is very small in
comparison to the white market (addresses acquired from ARIN). I also
don't see the transfer policy as "adding vast tracts of new regulation":
most of the restrictions in the transfer policy mirror restrictions in
existing ARIN policy for space acquired out of the free pool. There are
a few new restrictions, but generally they take the place of other (more
complex) restrictions in existing free-pool-allocation policy.
More information about the ARIN-PPML