[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - Last Call
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Mon May 2 20:09:39 EDT 2011
Well, another approach would be to reconsider all of section 4 in light of
the fact that very shortly the only way it will be applied is to transfers,
or to a trickle of returned space going against the waiting list. When
looked at from that point of view, I think most of section 4 starts to look
For example, in a post-depletion world, does it make sense to require that
an ISP use a /20 or /22 of PA space before getting their own space via
transfer? What about when most ISPs are doing something like NAT64 or
DS-Lite and only need a /23 to serve their entire customer base? Should
they be blocked from transferring such a block because it's not big enough?
Again, I'm not arguing that we need to change (or "throw out") all of NRPM
section 4 at this point. I'm just pointing out that a lot of our
restrictions start making a lot less sense in a world of address scarcity
that they did when they were first passed, so we need to start thinking
about how to keep up with the necessary changes and avoid applying
anachronistic rules if they're no longer needed. I think we're doing a good
job of rewriting and simplifying IPv6 policy to reflect such realities, and
anticipate that we'll need to start simplifying IPv4 policy for a
post-depletion world as well.
On May 2, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
I disagree entirely.
Transfers, if they are to be permitted, should be done with the recipient
required to meet
exactly the same justifications as those under section 4.
I see the 3-month timeframe as a temporary abomination to section 4,
of special circumstances of runout.
Throwing out the rest of section 4 because of it is absurd.
On May 2, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> Agree. Yet again we have a problem where the needs justification for using
> the very last of ARIN's free pool should be totally different than the needs
> justification for being the recipient of an expensive resource transfer via
> specified transfer, and yet it isn't.
> Can't fix the one without breaking the other in this case... or agreeing
> that needs justification for transfers needs fixing. (One of my proposals
> today that hasn't received comment yet covers the issue that new recipients
> can only get 3 months via specified transfer, given the current text, for
I have that one on my list to respond to. IMO we should be moving away from
having 8.3 requirements depend on section 4 requirements, and instead move
toward copying the necessary requirements to section 8, which whatever
modifications (like 24 months) are more appropriate for transfers. But that
is a bit of a project, which I don't have time for just yet. :-)
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML