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

Joe Maimon 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

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.

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 
so visibly.

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.

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.


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 mailing list