[arin-ppml] IPv4 Fragment Managemnt policy proposal

Joe Maimon jmaimon at chl.com
Thu Apr 29 09:49:03 EDT 2010

Owen DeLong wrote:
> At ARIN XXV, one of the discussions pointed out that under current
> ARIN policy, after IANA runout, a justified request for a /10 could
> (and would) be satisfied, if necessary, by issuing 1024 disjoint /20s.
> I believe there is a need for policy to prevent this kind of
> gathering of the last breadcrumbs by a small number of large
> entities. As such, I offer the following proposal for the discussion
> of the community.
> Owen

I agree with the intent and support the policy proposal. I will also 
note that PP110 deals with this head on, but the two are not 
incompatible in either intent or effect.

> Add the following to the NRPM as new sections et. seq.
> Each time ARIN approves an IPv4 request which it cannot
> satisfy from 4 or fewer bit-aligned blocks of free address
> space

This could be somewhat confusing. I would support a simple 1 request == 
1 NEW prefix + possible adjustments to old prefixes, which could differ 
from current practice.

> 8. Rationale:
> When the ARIN free pool begins to diminish, the free space
> will become fragmented into smaller and smaller remaining
> contiguous spaces. This policy attempts to ensure that a
> large number of remaining disjoint small blocks are not
> consumed by a single large request.

I question the effectiveness of any proposal that could be defeated 
simply by inundating ARIN with multiple smaller requests if the 
objective of the requester cannot be achieved via a single large request.

Unless constrained by policy, larger entities would easily be able to 
muster the manpower required to inundate ARIN with many justified small 
requests, either successively or concurrently.

As I currently understand it, the 12 or 3 month window are maximums, not 

> While this policy could be regarded as unfair to larger
> entities,

I think we need to ask ourselves a few questions:

Is it possible to do anything that would not be perceived as unfair to 
segments of the ARIN community?

What about inaction?

Have some segments of the ARIN community received or are perceived to 
have received more than their fair share of fairness to date?

Might it not be time for them to repay the balance?

Could not it be considered that the only policy that is fair to large 
entities would be one that levels the field between them, by denying 
them resources equally, instead of potentially allowing one of them to 
gain a few month (or longer) advantage over the others?

Do we believe that IPv4 players large and small will begin an orderly 
transition to IPv6 when faced with real resource scarcity or do we 
expect or suspect chaos and crisis?

If there is a real chance of chaos and crisis, are we doing the best we 
can to prepare and attempt to mitigate?

Damned if we do, damned if we dont - is the question one of how hot will 
hell be?

> 9. Timetable for implementation: Immediate, although it has no
> actual effect until some time after IANA runout.

Only due to detail, but not due to intent. Edits could easily change that.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list