[arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region
jcurran at arin.net
Fri Jun 5 08:16:25 EDT 2015
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?
President and CEO
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML