[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment

John Sweeting jsweeting at arin.net
Mon Dec 30 16:55:35 EST 2019


David - here you go


Year

# IX

# CI

2013

12

1

2014

21

0

2015

15

3

2016

7

2

2017

17

8

2018

19

0

2019

18

0


Let us know if you need anything else.

Thanks
John S.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 30, 2019, at 4:25 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

?

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:08 PM Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<mailto:hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:15 Joe Provo <ppml at rsuc.gweep.net<mailto:ppml at rsuc.gweep.net>> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:00:15PM -0600, David Farmer wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
[snip]
> > It is certainly the case that if you wanted ARIN to do something different
> > than that, the alternative would need to be clearly spelt out in policy ???
> > the highly obvious nature of returning blocks to their special pools
> > doesn???t necessarily require any specification in policy, unless it is being
> > done to avoid having such blocks inadvertently become subject to new policy
> > language.
> >
>
> If this policy doesn't gain consensus, I don't think it is necessary to put
> the first sentence into policy separately, I agree it is a fairly obvious
> thing to do. However, having it included in this policy makes it abundantly
> clear that the second sentence doesn't somehow apply the resources
> originally allocated from the 4.4 or 4.10 pools.  Further, the second
> sentence, as written, applies to "any other resource", and that phrasing
> wouldn't make much sense without the first sentence.

I support both in principle and the specific text, also notably
to provide the insurance as indicated by the tail end of John's
paragraph above.

Well, meh.  I don't think its totally necessary. Although I am neutral as to its disposition. However, if this is going to be considered seriously, it would be much better if the pools were rightsized and bracketed at three years ( as proposal suggests) from the start. There are some technical difficulties to be thought out there {filters, well known addresses, etc.} but should be doable.

The initial infra policies weren't intended to be permanent. They were intended to be a crutch for growth occurring at a higher rate at that time. IXP and TLD growth in the US has slowed compared to when the policy was enacted. Everyone that needed benefit should have already gotten it.

It would seem to make sense to clean up these pools all considered.

I'll agree that the intended longevity of the 4.4 pool was discussed at the time of its creation or at least when it was expanded and it was intended as a relatively short-term crutch for the IXP, TLDs and other critical infrastructure IPv4 micro allocation growth.  Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to right-sizing the 4.4 pool, with priority on other returned resources over the waiting list for replenishing this pool.

Maybe right-size it down to a 5 or 6 year supply, based on the last 5 or 6 years of allocations, with the excess going to the waiting list

A little history; ARIN-2012-6 made an initial reservation of a /16 and ARIN-2014-21 increased the reservation to a /15.
https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/proposals/2012_6.html
https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/proposals/2014_21.html

ARIN staff, could we get a history of the number of IPv4 micro allocations for each year, by type, going back to the implementation of ARIN-2012-6?

However, I don't recall any such discussion regarding the 4.10 pool. Quite the contrary it was my impression the 4.10 pool was intended to be around for at least an extended period of time, if not indefinitely. In short, it was intended to ensure the availability of small amounts of IPv4 needed for IPv6 deployment for a very long time. Therefore, I would be opposed to any kind of reduction to the 4.10 pool, other than by allocations as the policy intends, and if or when the pool starts to run low I would like to see it replenished.

A little history; ARIN-2008-5 is what became NRPM Section 4.10.
https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/proposals/2008_5.html

While I think the waiting list is an important tool to ensure resources are not stuck at ARIN, I think continued micro allocations (4.4) and allocations of IPv4 needed to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment (4.10) should have priority for returned resources over the waiting list.

Thanks.

--
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu<mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
_______________________________________________
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/20191230/962a66bc/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list