[arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in Last Call)?

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Nov 10 12:46:07 EST 2011

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 9, 2011, at 11:49 PM, Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com> wrote:

> Robert,
> I oppose 2011-1, as written.
> It is crucial that regions where IPv4 is not widely as diffused as elsewhere not be pushed from back to the front of the IPv6 deployment pack for want of IPv4 addresses.  Shifting resources into the ARIN region increases just such a risk.  To correct this concern, the AC should split the proposal into two- one for outbound transfers and one for inbound, where I would have no objection to outbound transfers.  Even better would be to stop tinkering with v4 allocation policies altogether and focus on IPv6 deployment.


Presumably such a region would not pass an inter-RIR transfer policy that allows resources to exit their region in that case. The fact that the ARIN policy permits bi-directional transfers does not in any way influence or control what other regions choose to permit with respect to these transfers. As proposed, this policy requires that their transfer policy have a needs-basis, but, otherwise, it is hands-off with regard to the policies of the other regions.

In actual implementation, I'd be very surprised if ARIN resource holders started purchasing addresses from organizations in the regions to which you refer (I'm presuming you mean LACNIC/AfriNIC) rather than obtaining them from the remaining ARIN free pool and/or from other ARIN resource holders. On the other hand, if ARIN resource holders start providing infusions of capital into those regions that fund their IPv6 deployments, is that really such a bad thing overall?

Also speaking only for myself,


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list