[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 19:03:07 EST 2015


Ok, thanks. Based on that explanation, I don't have any objections to this
policy proposal, but neither do I think there is any real need for it.

-Scott
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 12:44 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150112/0fe4e957/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list