[arin-ppml] Requesting Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10

[John Curran]

On Jan 11, 2015, at 12:53 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> Instead, my question is a simple question of staff interpretation.  Currently, 4.10 is "subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a maximum size allocation of /24."  I presume that means that if an organization came to ARIN today with a qualifying need for IPv4 space to support IPv6 deployment, but could not justify need for a /24, that they would be given a smaller block under 4.10.

Scott - 

   Yes, that is correct, but would only be done if the customer had no credible case for receiving 
   a /24 IPv4 allocation, as we presently do not have systems which support delegation of reverse 
   DNS services for IPv4 allocations that are smaller than a /24.

> Question 1: What test does ARIN staff use to determine what size of block someone qualifies for under 4.10?  In particular, is the test for getting a /24 under 4.10 the same as for free pool allocations/assignments under 4.2.2.1.1. and 4.3.2?

   The test for making an allocation is to confirm that the requesting organization has immediate
   IPv6 deployment requirements.  (To date, only one organization has qualified under 4.10, and 
   they were issued a /24, as they were intending to use the space for immediate IPv6 transition 
   needs and could plans sufficient for the allocation size.)  

   Because this policy has no specific criteria for initial allocation other than the "immediate IPv6 
   deployment” requirement, staff will continue to issue a /24 under this policy to any organization 
   who has need and can credibly show that they will utilize the /24 over time.  If an organization 
   cannot show that they will ever have need the /24 of IPv4 space for this purpose, under the
   present policy we would need to make a smaller allocation (and would work around any 
   system issues in a less than elegant fashion.)

> Secondarily, I wonder if 2014-22, if adopted, would make it easier or harder to get space under 4.10.  I could see staff interpreting the revised 4.10 language as either allowing anyone with a legitimate IPv6 deployment need (of any size) to get a /24, or as requiring that such a need be large enough to justify an entire /24 before an allocation/assignment could be made.

   Adoption of the draft policy would make clear that any requester who had an credible 
   “immediate  IPv6  deployment” need (and not met by any other allocations or assignments) 
   should receive a /24 allocation.   It would not materially change any organizations ability to 
   get allocations, but make quite clear the size of any allocations made.

> Question 2: Would adoption of 2014-22 allow someone who needs, for example, 75 IPv4 addresses for a NAT-PT or NAT464 pool immediately, growing to 100 in 1 year (and who would therefore qualify for a /25 under 4.10 today), to get a /24, or would they not qualify for anything until they could justify >50% of a /24?

   The organization would qualify for /25 under present policy (presuming no other IPv4 need 
   for IPv6 transition purposes is anticipated) and would qualify for a /24 if draft policy 2014-22 
   was adopted.

I hope this information helps consideration of the draft policy by the community.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN