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

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Sun Jan 11 00:53:17 EST 2015


On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Currently opposed to 2014-22, but can be convinced to take
> a pragmatic support position with some actual facts.
>

+1

But my concern is not so much with the filtering question (it's pretty
clear that filters are not open now, and any future opening of filters will
probably depend on who gets /25 or smaller blocks, and what they're used
for).

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.

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?

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.

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?

John, if those questions are straightforward to address, I think they would
inform the debate as to whether 2014-22 is necessary/useful.
Alternatively, if we need to wait until a full staff assessment is
performed to satisfactorily answer them, I'm happy to wait to make up my
mind until that is done.

Thanks,
Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150110/e9dce38c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list