[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Mon Aug 26 21:09:33 EDT 2019


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> Really, it seems to me that this proposal is another attempt at
> eliminating the waiting list for unmet requests.
>
> The first attempt (ARIN auctions the space) met with resistance from
> ARIN’s legal team (for good reason), so now this attempts to sequester the
> space where it will be hard to distribute rather than allowing the waiting
> list to have any potential to compete with the transfer market.
>
> The proposed targets (4.4 and 4.10 pools) are well stocked and unlikely to
> run out in any useful IPv4 lifetime.
>

Data: see "reserved"

https://www.arin.net/vault/knowledge/statistics/2018.html

If you look at the numbers you can see a mild acceleration and then what
looks like it could be a deceleration of assignments from this pool (and
many others ironically). Note, the time period is only a year. My
conclusions aren't rock solid as a result. I'm really just eyeballing.


>
> As such, restocking them from returned space strikes me as just a way to
> sequester this space where it cannot be used.
>
> IMHO, this is counter to ARIN’s mission and should not be allowed.
>

Do you think having pools of the magnitude and current use profile of 4.10
and perhaps even 4.10 are in need of being re-evaluated?

Admittedly, its a little re-arranging of the deck chairs. However, if the
waiting list is truly stocked with people who have a need and aren't just
using it to hedge against a transfer they already completed it may make
sense to make adjustments. And to potentially apply it there. I won't speak
to the authors intention on 4.10, but I had a hand in 4.4. I determined and
argued for the pool size based on conditions on the ground at the time.
Today I would argue IXP growth in NA is somewhat flat, that most are
commercial in nature and won't have trouble using the transfer market. Yes,
there are some that aren't for profit, but even those usually have an easy
time fundraising.

If anything should have a pool, a small pool for the Caribbean makes sense.
The contrast in economic conditions and market norms justify it easily in
my opinion. Such as the US large volume transit price per mb/s between
$0.05 and $0.15 nd for most there we're substantially north of a $1.00.



> I oppose the policy as written and as proposed to be amended.
>
>
I already said I opposed it, but just in case. Yes, +1.


Owen
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2019, at 13:55 , WOOD Alison * DAS via ARIN-PPML <
> arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the continued input on this draft policy proposal.
>
> I will be updating the text of the draft policy to include both 4.4 and
> 4.10 pools.  Point of information, the 4.4 pool currently has approximately
> 391 /24’s and 4.10 has approximately 15,753 /24’s available and are not
> estimated to run out in the next five years.
>
> Please keep your feedback coming, it is very helpful for the council.
>
> -Alison
>
> *From:* ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] *On Behalf Of *Fernando Frediani
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:44 AM
> *To:* arin-ppml <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses
> to the 4.10 Reserved Pool
>
>
> The point is that you treating IP marketing as something 'natural' or a
> 'default route' which it is not and can never be. Natural is to receive
> some addresses from the RIR in first place so they are treated as anyone
> else was in the past and have a chance to exist in the Internet with same
> conditions as all others. From that if they need extra space then fine to
> seek for alternative ways.
>
> I don't think a new entrants would automatically qualify for 4.10 in all
> cases therefore any space left should be targeted also to them as well to
> IPv6 transition and critical infrastructure. Otherwise the community will
> be creating an artificial barrier to them in order to favor the IP market
> while the RIR still has IPv4 space available for them.
>
> Fernando
> On 30/07/2019 10:30, Tom Fantacone wrote:
>
> I would think that the majority of new entrants would need at least some
> allocation to help with IPv6 transition and would qualify for addresses
> from the 4.10 pool.  Depending on what they receive from that pool and
> when, they may not qualify for additional waiting list addresses and would
> have to go to the transfer market for additional IPv4 space anyway.  Those
> that don't qualify under 4.10 can still get smaller IPv4 blocks on the
> transfer market readily, and the cost for blocks in the /24-/22 range is
> not prohibitive.  Certainly an organization seeking a small IPv4 block for
> multi-homing or other purposes is better off spending a few thousand
> dollars to purchase a range than waiting a year on the waiting list to put
> their plans in motion.
>
>
> Note that while RIPE does not have a reserve pool specifically for IPv6
> transition, the expectation of their final /8 policy was to allow new
> entrants access to IPv4 to assist in this transition.  In reality, it
> didn't work out that way and most of the /22 allocations to new LIRs from
> the final /8 were to existing organizations who spun up new, related
> entities in order to increase their IPv4 holdings:
>
>
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/so-long-last-8-and-thanks-for-all-the-allocations
>
> I'm also sympathetic to new entrants, but don't see the current waiting
> list as a great help to them vs. the 4.10 pool or the transfer market, both
> of which allow you your allocation in a timely fashion.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Tom Fantacone
>
> ---- On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 11:39:32 -0400 *Fernando Frediani
> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <fhfrediani at gmail.com>>* wrote ----
>
>
> I find it interesting the idea of privileging the pool dedicated to
> facilitate IPv6 Deployment and I also agree with the comments below in
> the sense that it's not very beneficial do most ARIN members due to max
> size, /22, cannot be holding more than a /20.
>
> However one point I couldn't identify is where the new entrants stand in
> this new possible scenario ? Will they only be able to apply under the
> 4.10 reserved pool ? If so for a access/broadband ISPs may be easier to
> fit, but not necessarily for other scenarios and types of ISPs.
> Therefore if I didn't miss anything these returned addresses should also
> be able to go to new entrants, not only to 4.10 reserved pool conditions.
>
> Best regards
> Fernando Frediani
>
> On 25/07/2019 17:32, Tom Fantacone wrote:
> > I found the wording of the Problem Statement on this one a bit
> > confusing. However, after deciphering the effect of the actual policy
> > change I support it.
> >
> > Essentially, all returned IPv4 space will no longer go to the waiting
> > list but will supplement the 4.10 reserved pool used to enhance IPv6
> > deployment.  This essentially kills off the waiting list.
> >
> > The recent restrictions placed on the waiting list to reduce fraud
> > have hobbled it to the point where it's not very beneficial to most
> > ARIN members.  (Max size, /22, cannot be holding more than a /20).
> > It's essentially only useful to new entrants, but those that go on it
> > still have to wait many months to receive their small allocation.  If
> > they justify need now, but have to wait that long, how critical is
> > their need if they're willing to wait that long?  Small blocks are not
> > terribly expensive and can be quickly gotten on the transfer market.
> > I can understand waiting that long for a large block needed for a
> > longer term project due to prohibitive cost, but I don't see a great
> > benefit to the waiting list as it stands.
> >
> > Also, if there's any fraud left on the waiting list, this would kill it.
> >
> > I would hope, however, that if implemented, those currently on the
> > waiting list would be grandfathered in.  I do think some entities with
> > legitimate need got burned on the last change made to the waiting list.
> >
> > At 04:05 PM 7/23/2019, ARIN wrote:
> >> On 18 July 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> >> "ARIN-prop-276: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool" as a
> >> Draft Policy.
> >>
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17 is below and can be found at:
> >>
> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_17/
> >>
> >> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
> >> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this
> >> draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource
> >> policy as stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP).
> >> Specifically, these principles are:
> >>
> >> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> >> * Technically Sound
> >> * Supported by the Community
> >>
> >> The PDP can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
> >>
> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Sean Hopkins
> >> Policy Analyst
> >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >>
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool
> >>
> >> Problem Statement:
> >>
> >> An inconsistent and unpredictable stream of address space is an
> >> unsuitable method of populating the waiting list (4.1.8.1) and
> >> fulfilling subsequent requests.
> >>
> >> Policy statement:
> >>
> >> Change "4.10. Dedicated IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment" to
> >> "4.10 Dedicated IPv4 Pool to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment"
> >>
> >> Change" When ARIN receives its last /8 IPv4 allocation from IANA, a
> >> contiguous /10 IPv4 block will be set aside and dedicated to
> >> facilitate IPv6 deployment. Allocations and assignments from this
> >> block " to "In addition to the contiguous /10 IPv4 block set aside
> >> and dedicated to facilitate IPv6 deployment, all returns and
> >> revocations of IPv4  blocks will be added to the pool of space
> >> dedicated to the facilitation of IPv6 deployment. Allocations and
> >> assignments from this pool "
> >>
> >> Change "This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of
> >> /28 and a maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse
> >> allocation when possible within that /10 block." to "This pool will
> >> be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a maximum sized
> >> allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when possible
> >> within the pool."
> >>
> >> Comments:
> >>
> >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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:
> >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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:
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> https://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/20190826/dacf64dd/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list