[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 110: Preservation of minimal IPv4 Resources for New and Small Organizations and for IPv6 Transition

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 23, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> 
> 
> Member Services wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Policy Proposal: Preservation of minimal IPv4 Resources for New and
>>> Small Organizations and for IPv6 Transition
> 
> 
> Michael, George,
> 
> 4.10 does not provide space to be used for addressing your customers if the reality happens to be that you cannot get or keep any customers without giving them some IPv4 addresses.
> 
Thanks for that clarification Joe.

Nor was it intended to.  I now oppose this proposal.

If we're going to give IPv4 out to people just to give it to their customers, it should be given based on current allocation/assignment rules.  The purpose of reserving the /10 was so that ANYONE who was implementing
new transitional services (such as new NAT-PT infrastructure, etc.) would be able to get small pieces of
IPv4 to make deployment of those transitional technologies possible. It _IS_ not intended to extend the
useful life of IPv4 for anyone.

In my opiion, this space absolutely should not be used to simply add more IPv4 customers to any provider.
The use case must be demonstrated to in some way advance the transition to IPv6 or provide temporary
legacy connectivity to IPv4 from IPv6 only customers. Otherwise, it does not fit the intent of 4.10.
> 
> The possibility exists that it may still be impractical to build a small business or start a new one with ipv6 even when no ipv4 is available except from preexisting holders who may be viewed unfavorably as monopolistic cartels and may even behave in such a manner.
> 
If that is the case, it will be a bad time to start an ISP. There are lots of factors that can make it a bad time to start an ISP. We've been through that before and we'll go through that again.

> I believe failing to prepare adequately for that scenario is not only irresponsible but that it can be widely viewed and seized upon as evidence that we have acted irresponsibly.
> 
I believe that locking up usable addresses for theoretical businesses that may not ever exist at a time when actual running businesses have a demonstrated need is a bigger example of acting irresponsibly.

> I do not consider the existence of transfers, waiting lists and the current 4.10 to go far enough as to be adequate.
> 
> The existence of minimal resources could do much to temper negative tendencies inherent in markets for limited resources.
> 
As I now understand the intent of your policy, it would not accomplish what you intend.  It would, instead, either create a situation where various existing organizations found ways to get in under the policy and get the space, or, it would get ARIN sued for squatting on address space that should be otherwise issued to organizations with demonstrated need.

Also, what you call "negative tendencies of a market", I am starting to call "incentive to move to IPv6."

> I am of the opinion that we need to behave responsibly and we need to do so visibly.
> 
Agreed.  Difference is that I think we have. I agree that 4.10 needs improvement and clarification... SOON.

However, it does not need to be gutted and replaced  by this.

> If IPv6 is not completely satisfactory in the common case for new or small growing entities that would be our failure.
> 
I disagree.

> Punishing them for our failure to properly establish IPv6 as a realistic alternative for complete networking and business opportunities is not going to fly.
> 
I guess that's a matter of perspective. I think I am on record as one of the most liberal champions of small end users and providers. I think I also have a pretty good track record in this area. Still, I don't see this as "punishment" so much
as they are in the same sinking ship with the rest of us. I don't see why the person in the rowboat next to the titanic
should get priority on a lifeboat. (which is how I see the clarification above)

> It certainly would not be their fault. They werent even around.
> 
Then it is a risk they should consider prior to launching a business that is dependent on IPv4.

> On the other hand, if they can go IPv6 they will certainly do so, at which point this pool, like the transfer market, the waiting list, the listing service and the existing 4.10 pool will go largely unused and join the wide swaths of returned and no longer used IPv4.
> 
> I fail to see the down side. I would call this proposal insurance and good form, not false hope.
> 
We can agree to disagree.

> Chris, David,
> 
> 4.10 is the only section currently where ARIN is directed to hold a specifically sized pool for specific purposes. The refinements, requirements and additions of more pools and purposes seemed to most naturally fit there. There is certainly some time and opportunity to try this from other tacks, but I expect this proposal to take a while to digest and I am in no rush to introduce other competing ones at this early point. Others may of course feel free to do so.
> 
> The goals of (the existing) 4.10 are specifically aimed towards those who have acute need of IPv4 even when there is none normally available from Arin. That is what this entire proposal is about, clarifying some needs and adding others.
> 
The goals of 4.10 are, actually, not that.

The goals of 4.10 were to ensure we didn't create a "can't get there from here" problem where all IPv4 addresses were consumed for business as usual and the sudden need to deploy something like NAT-PT to provide for IPv4 services access by IPv6 clients would not be rendered impossible to deploy for want of IPv4 addresses with which to deploy it.

I think that represents good stewardship. I think that it needs to be tightened up a little bit with some clarification so that it's use case doesn't get over-expanded.

> Owen,
> 
> It actually doubles the /10 to a /9, divided differently, with new and different requirements for some of it, along with additional eligibilities.
> 
We actually started out trying to set aside the full /8. We tried compromising to the /9. The community was actually pretty clear in their desire to limit this reservation to a /10.

> That changes ARIN exhaustion dates by about a month, give or take a week, at current burn rates.
> 
Yeah, that sounds like an accurate estimate.  Sorry I missed that in my first read-through.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100423/a8d04cf6/attachment.htm>