[arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[David Farmer]

On 4/17/13 10:59 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Apr 16, 2013, at 10:08 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>>   The ISP must demonstrate the need for IPv4 address resources under
>>>   ARIN standard allocation policies (i.e. a single-homed ISP showing
>>>   need for a /20 or multi-homed ISP showing need for a /22) in order
>>>   to qualify to receive resources via transfer.  Once qualified, we
>>>   can approve the transfer of IPv4 space; this can be to a maximum
>>>   of their documented need based on their current utilization rate
>>>   extended 24 months out, and down to a minimum of a single /24 (as
>>>   /24 is the explicit minimum transfer size specified in NRPM 8.3)
>>
>> Thanks John.
>>
>> So, what would folks think of a policy adjustment along these lines:
>>
>> "Add to: 8.3 Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
>>
>> * Minimum address block size qualifications defined in section 4 do
>> not apply to transfers to specified recipients."
>
> What problem do you think that would solve?
>
> In the current case being discussed, it isn't the block size minimums he
> is having a problem with, it is the amount he can get SWIPd vs. the
> inability to qualify under immediate need.
>
> IMHO, the correct fix is to modify the pre-existing space requirements
> so as to allow documented need to substitute for SWIP'd space.
>
> Owen

I'll just add; The new PDP requires Policy Proposals to have "a clear 
statement of the problem with existing Internet number resource policy". 
  I'd like to suggest, with the new PDP it may be more fruitful for us 
to change our habits and try to focus pre-proposal discussions on honing 
a common understanding of the problem statement rather than honing 
policy text as we have frequently done in the past.

I believe that if we clearly define the problem in its correct context 
then finding the correct text to solve that problem will likely be much 
easier.  I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss policy text, but that 
policy text without a clear problem statement may not be helpful.  That 
said, good policy text can sometimes help people understand the problem.

So, I believe there is a problem here, I'm just not sure we have a clear 
definition of the problem that is trying to be solved, yet.  And, in 
this case the policy text you propose isn't helping me understand the 
problem any better, if anything it has confused the problem for me.

Thanks

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================