[arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension]

Jeffrey Lyon jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net
Thu Feb 24 05:37:49 EST 2011

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
> Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>>> How about guaranteeing new entrants? Or those with only a thimbleful
>>> compared to those with buckets? Options for these folks will be a whole
>>> lot
>>> more limited. I submit that it is a much larger problem for these folks
>>> to
>>> deploy LSN and whatever else will continue to be required until it truly
>>> is
>>> the year of IPv6.
>> This interests me. Are you saying that IPv4 space should be limited to
>> small allocations in order to ensure that IPv4 stays open to new
>> organizations while encouraging the migration to IPv6 for current
>> heavy users?
> Yes, there should be IPv4 space set aside available to those who have none.
> I also believe there should be IPv4 space set aside available to those who
> have next to none.
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-April/017321.html
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-May/017523.html
> Apparently it is not a popular idea here.
> Joe

I like the idea, at least on its surface. Would the reversed IP's be
for new organizations only or merely reserved for small allocations?
What do you consider small? /21, /20, /19 etc?

Perhaps you could propose a policy that would set a maximum size for a
IPv4 request and require those with needs in excess to migrate to
IPv6. The questions becomes whether the maximum size would be per
request or aggregate? As I understand it now, IPv4 will always be
available in some form but the new entrants will have to get in line
to wait for the space to become available or grease the palms of
another company wanting to "sell" their allocation.

A policy like this could keep the door open for those who need to get
in the door with IPv4 before they're able to move on to IPv6.
Personally, I would like to see a policy like this extended to those
who are technically inhibited from adopting IPv6 who have an interim
need for small IPv4 allocations and perhaps add the following to IPv4
justification requirements:

- Why IPv4 is needed vs. IPv6.
- When does the organization intend to renumber and return the IPv4 space.
- What technical limitations are preventing adoption of IPv6 between
now and the aforementioned date.

Lastly, ARIN could create a financial incentive for those who opt to
return IPv4 space or move from IPv4 to IPv6 in an expeditious fashion
which would further support a policy like the one stated above. This
could be a fee waiver credit or permanently reduced fees for those
organizations meeting certain criteria and quickly returning unneeded
IPv4 space.

Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list