[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-130: IPv4 Transition Reservation for Every ASN
owen at delong.com
Fri Jan 21 17:13:21 EST 2011
On Jan 21, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 1/21/2011 12:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I oppose this proposal.
>> The current policy NRPM 4.10 does a better job of addressing this need without
>> the added risks of creating a large pool of space reserved for ASNs that will
>> not likely ever use it.
> The NRPM 4.10 block will be rapidly consumed by the organizations that move first. This leaves every other organization without a means for acquiring transition addresses. Proposal 130 is specifically about addressing *every other organization*.
There are 16,384 /24s (maximum allocation size in NRPM 4.10) in the reserved space.
There are (IIRC) something like 12,000 total ORGs with IP delegations from ARIN.
I believe the collective result of these two statistics is that your statement cannot be
> There is no danger of "creating a large pool of space reserved for ASNs that will not likely ever use it" because, if IPv6 transition is successful, there will be a huge surplus of IPv4 space and these reservations will just be a drop in the bucket at that point.
No, that's when IPv6 transition is successful.
However, in the meantime, DURING the transition, there will be lots of need for IPv4
addresses by organizations not served by this policy while this policy holds large
amounts of address space fallow in case those organizations that don't care ever
happen to notice this policy and decide to take advantage of it.
> I would support putting a deadline by which the space must be claimed, but I fear that any reasonable deadline would be after the point where it doesn't matter.
If you were to put a deadline on this, I would say that any organization that fails
to act to claim their space under this policy within 180 days of the latter of
IANA exhaustion or policy implementation would be a reasonable deadline
and likely well before such an expiration is moot.
More information about the ARIN-PPML