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

[John Curran]

On Jun 28, 2011, at 4:35 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> I believe there may be a fifth option.
> 
> I believe that the ISPs who need this space might be able to  form a consortium and
> use this as a standard justification to have the IPs registered to the consortium
> as an organization. It would be up to the consortium after that whether they
> expressed a willingness for non-members to make duplicate use of their
> address space for this purpose or not.
> 
> John Curran, could you please comment on whether such a request from
> a consortium for an allocation or assignment could be processed within
> staff interpretation of existing policy?

There is unlikely to be a consortium with the necessary allocation
history to warrant a /10 allocation per NRPM 4.2.4.  With respect 
to an end-user assignment, it is a difficult question.  First, 
one must determine whether this application is an "internal use" 
to see if the end-user policy in NRPM 4.3 is applicable.  If so,
and absent any utilization history, ARIN would assign the minimum
sized block (/20) and encourage the organization to come back for
more when utilization of the initial assignment has reached 80%.
There is some discretion within the end-user policy to provide a
larger initial allocation if clearly warranted, but this needs to 
be balanced against the conservation principle in RFC 2050 and the 
assignment of a /10 would obviously be completely unprecedented.
I will need to research the end-user option in more detail to see
if (and/or how) it applies; at this time I cannot be certain that 
it could be used for this purpose and still be true to existing
application of policy.

FYI,
/John

John Curran 
President and CEO
ARIN