[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - Last Call

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 24, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> 
> 
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I'm really not seeing a point to your financial statement here.
>>> 
>>> If there is real need and this proposal does not end up being
>>> implemented, you'll see this group pool their money and acquire
>>> address space. They would likely opt to cost share the transaction and
>>> the divisors would work in their favor.
>>> 
>> Uh, perhaps, but, more likely they will get it from ARIN and not
>> from the market. Further, more likely, rather than pool their money,
>> they'll just get individual assignments/allocations.
>> 
> 
> Are you telling me that all these operators are not and will not be requesting justifiable resources from ARIN because they plan on using this shared /10 from that?
> 
I'm telling you that they probably would not request additional justifiable resources from ARIN for
the NAT444 purpose and that this policy will allow them to delay their need to deploy NAT444
to their customers. I think both of those things are a good thing.

> As I and many others have repeatedly pointed out, the notion is naive and incredible.
> 
I disagree.

> Can we put this to rest one way or the other?
> 
> Do you or anyone else have credible information regarding any operators who have decided not to continue processing and generating additional IP requests because they plan on making do with this /10?
> 
That's a complete fallacy of the situation.

The question really is do operators need to submit additional requests specifically for pools to handle
this purpose or not. Of course their normal needs for addresses for other purposes will remain whether
or not this policy is adopted.

> The /10 this proposal aims to remove from the community forever will only come to play when comparable resources are unavailable to anyone from anywhere else. And then it will serve only these large orgs interests and none other.
> 
Actually, about 75% of the providers that have approached me saying they really need this are small
to medium sized ISPs. True, they could get by with less than a /10, but, consider also this fact...

The /10 issued as unique unicast could serve only 1,024 organizations that need a /20 (a fairly small ISP).
On the other hand, the /10s, /11s, /12s, and /14s required for NAT444 pools by the large providers will
likely add up to far more than the /10 being requested here. This would be additional need that they
would submit over and above their normal request rate which would accelerate runout for everyone else,
including those small providers you claim you are attempting to save from this action.

> I suppose I would horse trade support for a proposal like this for a proposal that would take a /10 out for those who will truly get shafted after ARIN exhaustion.
> 
If you can explain how that would help, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed, but, I think pretty much everyone
gets shafted when ARIN runs out, so, I'm not sure how a /10 set aside for everyone changes anything.

> It wont be those orgs who collectively received 80% of ARIN resources.
> 
Let's be realistic here... Those orgs also collectively serve 80% of the customers in the region.

> Let us all sit by while the new G8 emerges to control address availability in the North America region.
> 
I'll pass on the conspiracy theories. I think I have a pretty strong track record for defending the interests
of the smaller providers in the region.

> That will make the v6 root canal without novocain people happy.
> 
Again, I'm not sure what you're attempting to say here. IPv6 is not that painful. IPv6 sooner is less
painful than IPv6 later.

Owen