[arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Mon Apr 15 17:37:15 EDT 2013
Would you be interested in submitting a policy proposal to address the
issue? If so, just fill out the short template at
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_appendix_b.html and submit it to
policy at arin.net (and Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net if you want it posted here). I
(and likely several other AC members) would also be happy to help if you're
unsure about anything.
Once you propose a policy change, the AC assigns shepherds to work directly
with you, verifies that the topic is in scope and has a clearly defined
problem statement / rationale (or works with you to clarify it), and then
if it meets those requirements, accepts it as a draft policy to be
discussed at an upcoming policy meeting.
Thanks for participating in improving ARIN's policies. I'm looking forward
to hopefully working with you more in the near future.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Tim St. Pierre
<tim at communicatefreely.net>wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> Yes, if that clause were added, I would have my allocation by the end of
> the week. In fact, in my immediate need application attempt, I was able to
> document that I was actively providing connectivity to over 500 devices.
> The silly thing about requiring the /23 first, is that I have to somehow
> find a /23, assign it, then get my /22 and give back the /23. A lot of
> nuisance for customers with static assignments and more work than it ought
> to be, since I can meet the spirit of the policy, just not the letter of it.
> On 13-04-15 04:17 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> I think this is an issue that is only going to get worse as IPv4
> exhaustion makes upstream ISPs less willing to allocate large blocks of
> addresses to downstream customers. In such a situation, I think it is
> entirely appropriate to allow a downstream ISP, which has a customer base
> large enough to justify a /23 (and is allocating those customers
> ARIN-assigned IPv6 space) to also get approved for an IPv4 /22, and be
> eligible to acquire it on the transfer market if the ARIN free pool is
> exhausted. I would personally rather not liberalize 22.214.171.124. Immediate
> need, as that is supposed to be for "exceptional" cases, but perhaps adding
> a clause to the first bullet point of 126.96.36.199. Multihomed would be
> appropriate. Maybe something like "or demonstrate the assignment of IPv6
> addresses to more than 500 devices"?
> Would that kind of policy help for a situation like yours?
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Thanks for bringing this up. It sounds like a real issue, which could use
>> some policy work. Cross-posting to PPML, where such policy discussions
>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:43 AM, "Tim St. Pierre" <tim at communicatefreely.net>
>> > Hello,
>> > We are a new ISP, and we have had some interesting dilemma's getting
>> > started. I'm curious to know if this is something that has affected
>> > others, or if I'm just in a strange situation.
>> > We are building out an access network to reach business customers in a
>> > small town. We will probably never be very big, but we like are town
>> > and are hoping to eventually extend our reach to most business in town.
>> > When we started, we requested a /32 IPv6 from ARIN. We had to explain
>> > what we were doing, and our coverage area, etc. This seems reasonable
>> > and all, and eventually we got our /32. At this point, all we had was a
>> > /28 IPv4 SWIP'd from an upstream, so our fees jumped from $0 to $1800
>> > for the year.
>> > Now we have a running network, with real customers, and we need IPv4
>> > allocations, since running IPv6 only for retail Internet is a bit
>> > problematic. We tried to get a /24 out of our upstream, but they are
>> > essentially out of address space and can't give us any. They can't get
>> > any more either, because they just got taken over by a larger carrier
>> > that has free pools, but on a different AS.
>> > We do have another upstream that we could connect to, but they can't
>> > give us anything more than a /28 either.
>> > I applied for a /22 under the immediate need category, but I don't
>> > qualify, since I can really only use about 2/3 of it within 30 days.
>> > So now I'm stuck with a customer base that has native IPv6 for everyone,
>> > but only a /29 IPv4 to share between 12 offices and about 200 or so
>> > retail WiFi users. I have to do crazy incoming NAT nonsense to support
>> > my customers mail servers and VPN devices, and I'm crossing my fingers
>> > that the wireless users don't do something stupid and get us all
>> > blacklisted.
>> > Should there be an additional policy to deal with initial allocations
>> > where efficient utilization of X number of IPv6 /64s would serve as
>> > justification for a /22 IPv4, or perhaps some other scheme that makes it
>> > a little easier for new ISPs. I understand that IPv4 is constrained,
>> > but we aren't out of them yet, and a small ISP still needs an allocation
>> > to function.
>> > Another alternative would be a new entrant policy similar to the
>> > immediate need clause, but with the following changes:
>> > -Only 50% must be used within 30 days
>> > -ISP must demonstrate that IPv6 has been deployed to end users
>> > -The same documentation of customer contracts and purchased equipment
>> > would still apply.
>> > I look around and see the big incumbents with no IPv6 to speak of, yet
>> > they have IPv4 for every customer. Here I am as the little startup
>> > trying to make a go of it, but I'm at a serious disadvantage because I
>> > can't get any address resources.
>> > Am I just terribly unlucky, or is this becoming a problem for others as
>> > well? I think the main issue is that upstream providers aren't able to
>> > hand out /24s like they used to, so showing a /23 equivalent from an
>> > upstream is next to impossible now.
>> > Thanks!
>> > -Tim
>> > --
>> > --
>> > Tim St. Pierre
>> > System Operator
>> > Communicate Freely
>> > 289 225 1220 x5101
>> > tim at communicatefreely.net
>> > www.communicatefreely.net
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ARIN-Discuss
>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
>> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> Tim St. Pierre
> System Operator
> Communicate Freely289 225 1220 x5101tim at communicatefreely.netwww.communicatefreely.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML