[arin-ppml] Bootstrapping new entrants after IPv4 exhaustion
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Mon Nov 25 13:57:27 EST 2013
I agree with you that we need to avoid the deadly embrace: that is the main
reason for proposing this, so we're in full agreement there.
I'm not sure that it would be a good idea, though, to let any organization,
not matter how small, get an IPv4 /24 from ARIN's free pool without any
real restrictions. I am much more comfortable allowing an organization to
get such a /24 via transfer, where they have to have at least enough need
for the space to justify spending the money for it.
In any event, I wonder if we should first focus on the less controversial
fix, and make sure that anyone who can justify the need for a /24 or larger
can get it somehow or other, and separately look into the possibility of
portable space for organizations needing less than a /24.
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Frankly, I don’t think blocking off existing players from getting space
> they need in order to save space for possible future entrants is good
> I do think we need to make sure that we avoid deadly embrace in the
> transfer market where new players can’t even get a transfer simply because
> they can’t get upstream space or meet some other prior-space requirement
> before being able to seek out space in the transfer market.
> However, I also think it is bad policy to make those policies any more
> liberal for transfers than they are for what is left of the ARIN free pool.
> Hence, I support something like what Scott has posted, but I believe it is
> necessary to remove the “transfer only” clause from it.
> On Nov 24, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com> wrote:
> New entrants cannot hope to compete in a long term strategy with only
> limited amounts of v4. So they will have to go to the transfer market if
> they need more. Isn't the transfer market about enabling people who
> 'really want or need' v4 that opportunity. But, I agree that having some
> v4 for start ups is probably still a requirement for now, so I would
> consider a single small block.....still, if v6 deployment is delayed longer
> than we hope, then the v4 for new entrants may still run out. What do we
> do for those folks..... We cannot continue to move the deck chairs to
> forestall the move to v6 forever....
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 4:58 PM, CJ Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, but it limits that use to strictly transitional technology
>>> deployment, not general IPv4 utilization.
>> I think this is something we should be discussing. Right now the only
>> post run out policy ARIN has is for the last /10. You can get a block
>> (very small) out of this for transition technologies only. There is no
>> provision for new entrants except the transfer market in the ARIN region.
>> So some of us, and Scott started the discussion going, want to clean up
>> the policy manual so that it makes sense for ARIN post run out. We could
>> also make a policy like in the other regions that gives a specific size
>> block to everyone (or maybe just new entrants?) out of some of the last
>> space. If we are going to add the second option then time is really short.
>> we made the final /10 policy a very long time ago and maybe not everyone
>> realizes it is just for transition? Do people still think this makes sense?
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML