[arin-ppml] Summary: lowering the ARIN minimum allocation

[Owen DeLong]

On Aug 3, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> In a message written on Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:49:31PM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com 
>  wrote:
>> 	a) that once the last "greenfield" IPv4 prefix is handed out,
>> 	   that any/all policy for IPv4 is dead.
>
> I did not say that.  The policy doesn't magically die.  However,
> the discussion here is of a policy that describes a process for
> giving things out from the free pool.  If there is no free pool,
> or a free pool created only from the voluntary return of address
> space then I don't think the policy is going to get used very often,
> post-runout.
>
> I also included my own feeling about the future.  IPv4 will end.
> IPv6 will replace it.  You can argue if that's in 2, 5, or 50 years,
> but no matter the timeframe IPv6 policy matters for a longer period
> of time from now than IPv4 policy.
>
If it weren't for the following, I might agree with you:

6.5.8. Direct assignments from ARIN to end-user organizations

6.5.8.1. Criteria
To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must:
not be an IPv6 LIR; and
qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4  
policy currently in effect, or demonstrate efficient utilization of  
all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must be  
covered by any current ARIN RSA.

Given that section of the NRPM, any change we make to the IPv4
policy here automatically benefits IPv6 users as well.

>
> Case in point, subnet size does not matter in IPv6.  Under current
> policy if you have 1, 100, 100,000, or 100,000,000 boxes in a subnet
> you use a /64.  That is not the case in IPv4, those would all get
> different sized subnets.
>
Does this in any way indicate that someone who receives a /24
direct assignment should not be eligible for a /56, or, if requested
a /48 from ARIN?

> Today many small business get a /27 from their upstream; outgrow
> it and add a /27 overlay, outgrow it and renumber into a /24, outgrow
> that and renumber into a /23.  In IPv6 they get a /64 (minimum,
> maybe a /56, or even a /48), and all those renumbering steps go
> away.
>
Sure, but, I believe that existing policy coupled with the proposal
I just posted handles this perfectly well for both the IPv4 and IPv6
cases. If you do not, please show me where the problem is.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090803/982392bf/attachment.htm>