[arin-ppml] Transition /10

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Tue Oct 20 14:03:28 EDT 2015


That was 2014. It is now near 2016. Then, we were not exhausted. Now, we
are.

Here's the RIPE policy bits

    https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649

Here's the ARIN policy:

    https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html (Section 4.10)

A brief summary.

The RIPE policy is liberal in that every LIR (new or old) gets a /22. The
ARIN policy is restrictive and digs into the same old noise around needs
and transfer.

We _could_ narrow this to new entrants (which does pose an antitrust
question).

We _could_ also direct that incoming IANA bits be redirected to new
entrants as well up to the equivalent of a /8 to be parallel to other
regions, but I'm not sure we need a limit although.

We _could_ limit the size of the allocation to no longer shorter than a /24.


Best,

-M<


On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:

> The ARIN community previously considered these ideas under 2014-16, but
> changing the /10 to something other than transition never had sufficient
> support for the AC to move it forward.
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_16.html
>
> .Andrew
>
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Morizot Timothy S <Timothy.S.Morizot at irs.gov>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the clarifications. In that context, assuming a new entrant is
> deploying IPv6, wouldn't the current policy allow them to request
> allocations to support that deployment. It specifically mentions needs like
> dual-stacked nameservers and various IPv4 life extension solutions. If a
> new entrant *isn't* deploying IPv6 from the start, do we really want to
> support them with a free pool allocation? For any needs beyond those
> described in the policy, there's the transfer market. I don't know that I
> have particularly strong feelings either way, but if we're going to reserve
> any general use pool at all rather than simply handing it all out to meet
> current need, I think it's better to tie it to demonstrated IPv6 deployment.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Spears, Christopher M.
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:21 AM
> To: Hadenfeldt, Andrew C
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Transition /10
>
> NRPM 4.10 [1] dedicated /10 for IPv6 "transition"..
>
> I tossed a similar idea around with some folks at ARIN36.   Use this /10
> to allocate a /24 per **new** Org, and steer subsequent transactions to
> transfers.   That would ensure IPv4 for ~16K **new** entrants in the coming
> years..
>
> [1] https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20151020/c1394193/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list