[arin-ppml] 4.10 transition/deployment /10 Was: Re: Transition /10

[David Farmer]

On 10/21/15 07:27 , Martin Hannigan wrote:

> Watching the
> debate over the RIPE last /8 policy, it simple convinced me we were
> _wrong_.  And having networks go to RIPE for their last v4 allocation
> seems to be at odds with "out of region" use, which in itself is of
> questionable utility.

So, how does ARIN handing out /24s, prevent or even discourage someone 
from going to RIPE for a /22?  It seems likely to me they would just go 
to both ARIN and RIPE and get the /24 and the /22 if they are available 
to them.

> The RIPE region could adjust their policies
> accordingly, but they seemed to have gotten it mostly right. Making new
> entry into the market easy-peasy without technical restrictions other
> than you need to use it seems more reasonable that what we have.

Conceptually, I've always liked and even preferred the RIPE and APNIC 
last /8 policy, but we couldn't agree on it in 2009, and our options are 
now limited.  If you have a specific suggestion based on the realities 
of today, I'm listening.

> The
> impact to v6 deployment overall is probably zero. And finally, it at
> least addresses the inequity that new entrants will have with those of
> us who are policy expects and know how to use the secret decoder ring
> e.g. "assigned" "provisioned" "get a new ORG ID" etc.

It's not about incentivizing IPv6 deployment, is about ensuring entities 
a can get some IPv4 for the deployment of IPv6 for many years come.  If 
you have a suggestion to simplify access by new entrants I'm willing to 
listen.

> Best,
>
> -M<

-- 
================================================
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
================================================