[arin-ppml] Transition /10

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Tue Oct 20 16:00:12 EDT 2015


Hi Karl, 

Just throwing it out there. My personal opinion is that the v6 deployment /10 is a failure and an economic limiter for new entrants and could be rethought. 

Best, 

-M<

> On Oct 20, 2015, at 20:12, Karl Brumund <kbrumund at dyn.com> wrote:
> 
> Martin,
> I'm unsure what the problem is that you're trying to solve. I'm guessing it's `let anybody new get a /24` so they have a chance for some v4 space. Or maybe its have ARIN be the same as other regions (though I'd say the transfer process is a bigger fish for that).
> You mentioned 'reasonable and fair'. Could you elaborate a bit, as I think I'm not caffinated enough to follow.
> 
> Thanks!
> ...karl
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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] 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.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/c325528e/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list