[arin-ppml] Free-pool allocation policy (Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4 ISP Transfers)

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

I kinda agree that we should work toward a post free pool world.

Right now, other than the few lucky people who have obtained resources 
from the free pool, microallocations under 4.4 or IPv6 deployment under 
4.10 are the only IPv4 resources being allocated under section 4 policy. 
The majority of total activity of late is clearly section 8 transfers.

I think our work here should be toward a single policy for all, which 
would include the few section 4 allocations, along with the section 8 
transfers.  Section 4.10's limit is a /28 to a /24, whereas 4.4's limit is 
/24 or /23 and the remaining section 8 transfers under discussion can be 
from a /27 to a /24.

I would like to see us work toward a single policy used for all of these 
cases, with the exact limits used in each case dependent on which section 
of the NRPM the person is applying for number resources.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, John Curran wrote:

> On 25 Jan 2018, at 8:34 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> ….
>>     Note that as a practical matter the ISP would no IPv4 space from 
>> ARIN, but instead go to the waiting list for an uncertain chance at 
>> receiving some resources in the future.
>
> Note as a follow-on for thought - The discussion of free-pool allocation 
> policy also raises an important issue: specifically, in light of 
> free-pool depletion, what is the policy purpose of IPv4 free-pool 
> allocation policy given an active and functional transfer market?
>
> While a waiting list policy that allows for receiving allocations 
> similar to historical practice has obviously been an important 
> transitional mechanism (providing a functional alternative at runout 
> while the market got established and for those who were caught unaware), 
> its goals at this point are less clear.  If the goal is to help those 
> who lack financial resources with an opportunity to receive resources, 
> then one would expect entry to the waiting list (and issuance when 
> available) to be conditioned on same.  If the goal is help as many 
> parties as possible, then allocation of anything other than the minimum 
> allocation size (/24) would seem ill-advised, as would supporting 
> additional allocation requests.
>
> It might be worth the community spending some time discussing the 
> underlying goals of the post-depletion IPv4 allocation policy, as it is 
> unclear whether its goals meaningfully overlap that of the transfer 
> policy.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>