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

Mon Jul 29 17:32:34 EDT 2019

Hi Mike,

My purpose in authoring this proposal was to starve the Waiting list to
death by preventing further unpredictable influxes of addresses.

I would support allocating returned addresses to both 4.10 and 4.4 pools, or
whichever might need them most.

I know the 4.10 pool is largely untapped, but I'm not sure about the 4.4
pool, so maybe it would be better to place returned space there.

Regards,
Mike

From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Mike Arbrouet
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 5:03 PM
To: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to
the 4.10 Reserved Pool

Having read the Problem Statement and understood what is being proposed, I'd
kindly advise that this policy should also consider allocating the returned
addresses not only to the ARIN 4.10 reserved pool - but also the ARIN 4.4
micro-allocation pool for critical infrastructure providers of the Internet
, specifically public exchange points. Both would help on the improvement of
the end-user experience given the actual depletion of IPv4

Mike Arbrouet, CISSP- CISM

  _____  

From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> > on behalf of Fernando Frediani
<fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com> >
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 10:39:32 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to
the 4.10 Reserved Pool 

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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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/20190729/fac0e3d1/attachment.htm>