[arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Fri Jun 5 08:16:25 EDT 2015

Folks -

   We’ve had a wonderful time reviewing how we got to the present state, but as
   Mr. Huberman pointed out, we’re now approaching runout of the IPv4 free pool
   for the ARIN region, and with this will obviously come an increased need by
   some parties for IPv4 transfers.  The ability of this community to set policy
   applicable to IPv4 transfers should be taken as basic assumption (and we
   will certainly keep the community apprised if there should ever be a change
   in this ability.)

   With that in mind, I’d like to challenge the community to consider and clearly
   state the underlying purpose for having constraints on IPv4 transfers, and how
   such policy meets ARIN’s mission <https://www.arin.net/about_us/overview.html>
   or policy development goals <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>.   While it is
   true that our default position on registry policy is that we preserve the status quo
   until a change is shown to be needed, the unique one-time event of the runout
   of the IPv4 free pool warrants a fresh statement and review of the purposes that
   we aim to fulfill via the IPv4 transfer policy.

   Our current needs-based IPv4 transfer policy is basically derived from the IPv4
   allocation policy, and the assumption that the registry should determine those
   parties who should be issued IPv4 address space.  This is very reasonable
   assumption when the resources are coming from the IPv4 regional free pool,
   but it is unclear what purpose is fulfilled in making the same determination
   when the resources are coming from another party.

   If the community can agree on a common statement of the purpose for the IPv4
   transfer policy (which will take active engagement towards trying to understand
   everyone’s concerns), then it might be possible to lay groundwork for simpler
   transfer policy for which everyone understands the underlying basis, and thus
   has an much easier time supporting.

   So, to start the discussion, what is the underlying need for an IPv4 transfer
   policy, and why?    I will get things going with a potential less-contentious
   example - it is quite possible that the an IPv4 transfer policy is necessary
   to insure that blocks that are transferred are of a minimum size. While the
   ISP community _may_ be capable of dealing with a flood of /30’s suddenly
   appearing and seeking routing, it is quite unclear if there is any benefit in
   creating that potential condition, and there is certainly risk to the Internet if
   ISPs succumb to the customer pressure and route such in large quantity.

   Can we start with a deliberate reasoned discussion on this one aspect of the
   IPv4 transfer policy, and if common ground is found, move on to any other
   perceived transfer policy requirements?


John Curran
President and CEO

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150605/3d74723b/attachment.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list