[arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
springer at inlandnet.com
Wed Apr 17 13:55:24 EDT 2013
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, David Farmer wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
Paste from arin-discuss, from an exchange between Owen and Randy Carpenter
>> I think the real problem here is requiring pre-existing PA space of
>> certain amounts as the initial test. The combination of a customer
>> base, need, and efficient utilization of any PA space is probably the
>> better test.
> This is something that I believe really needs fixed (and needs to be
> fixed very quickly).
This seems to be rather far along to a problem statement. I agree with
More information about the ARIN-PPML