[arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[John Springer]

Inline

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.
>> 
>> 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.

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).

> -Randy

This seems to be rather far along to a problem statement. I agree with 
both statements.

John Springer