[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 110: Preservation of minimal IPv4 Resources for New and Small Organizations and for IPv6 Transition
jmaimon at chl.com
Fri Apr 23 17:53:53 EDT 2010
Member Services wrote:
>> Policy Proposal: Preservation of minimal IPv4 Resources for New and
>> Small Organizations and for IPv6 Transition
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.
Many believe and most hope that IPv6 will be in a state where all those
entering the market can and will want to do so with IPv6 at time of full
depletion and extreme scarcity of IPv4, which takes effect some time
after free pool depletion, not necessarily next fiscal year.
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.
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 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.
I am of the opinion that we need to behave responsibly and we need to do
If IPv6 is not completely satisfactory in the common case for new or
small growing entities that would be our failure.
Punishing them for our failure to properly establish IPv6 as a realistic
alternative for complete networking and business opportunities is not
going to fly.
It certainly would not be their fault. They werent even around.
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.
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.
It actually doubles the /10 to a /9, divided differently, with new and
different requirements for some of it, along with additional eligibilities.
That changes ARIN exhaustion dates by about a month, give or take a
week, at current burn rates.
Thanks to all for the feedback.
More information about the ARIN-PPML