[arin-ppml] Transition /10
David Farmer
farmer at umn.edu
Tue Oct 20 22:01:54 EDT 2015
I think Section 4.10 (2008-5) is working as planed.
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_5.html
The IPv4 free pool is now out and we still have a /10 for those that
need some IPv4 for IPv6 deployments. At least that much is a success.
We would be far worse off without the /10.
Our community couldn't agree on reserving the whole last /8 like some of
other RIRs did. A /10 isn't enough for the same kind of last /8 policy
that the other RIRs have, that is everyone gets a /22 or something like
that. It's really too late to change that now.
However, we need to think hard about the current policy and if the
details are correct now that the IPv4 free pool is gone and we actually
need to make use of it. I would love to hear experiences using and/or
suggestions to improve section 4.10. But, with only a /10 I'm going to
be very leery of suggestions for use of the 4.10 reservation that are
not directly tied to IPv6 deployment requirements.
If you want IPv4 for IPv4 sake there are transfers and the waiting list,
and the waiting list isn't a reliable source of addresses, so that
really only leaves transfers.
thanks
On 10/20/15 20:20 , Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Personally I think we'll have a much better idea in a few months how
> well the v6 deployment /10 has worked. Up until now, it's been easier
> to get (larger) general free pool allocations than space from the /10.
> Now that the free pool is exhausted, I expect to see every new entrant
> applying for a block under 4.10, so we should very rapidly get some data
> on how easy it is for them to get something useful. Based on that
> experience and data, I would be quite willing to consider a policy
> change, but up until now I think we've been seeing exactly what we
> should've expected to see.
>
> -Scott
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com
> <mailto:hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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>
>>> [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 <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
>
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list