[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF

Scott Leibrand sleibrand at internap.com
Fri Mar 7 19:29:59 EST 2008

David Conrad wrote:
> Scott,
> 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 mailing list