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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, 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>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:15 Joe Provo <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> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>> [ clip ]


> 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
>
>
Let's assume the pool size is a /15 and use an average rate of allocation
IXP+CI of 18 /24 per year.

YEAR  0 - YEAR 5 = 105 /24's (generous as I measured beginning of period to
end of period)

                                           *  BOP                  EOP*
YR 0 131,072 131,054
YR 1 131,054 131,037
YR 2 131,037 131,019
YR 3 131,019 131,002
YR 4 131,002 130,984
YR 5 130,984 130,967
YR 6 130,967 130,949
YR 7 130,949 130,931
YR 8 130,931 130,914
YR 9 130,914 130,896
YR 10 130,896 130,879
YR 11 130,879 130,861
YR 12 130,861 130,844
YR 13 130,844 130,826
YR 14 130,826 130,808

If we were going to bracket at five years we'd need a total of 88 /24's.
Which doesn't include returns. Although there probably aren't any. See
distraction below.

IIRC correctly the motivation on the CI pool was a pending flood of new
gTLD's. It was the period where the root was busted wide open for the wild
west of TLD's e,g. ".cakeisgood". Which happened on paper (and cash) but
didn't materialize numbers wise. It was a good insurance policy. Which
seems less needed now. Same for IXPs.

// unrelated distraction //

Micro allocation for 206.51.35.0

Discovered open port 1723/tcp on 206.51.35.6

Discovered open port 1723/tcp on 206.51.35.25

Discovered open port 1723/tcp on 206.51.35.33

Discovered open port 1723/tcp on 206.51.35.7


Hm. Something is not right there. What could it be?


https://pastebin.com/c0QYF5QZ


Cheers,


-M<









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
> 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
> ===============================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200103/6db6c5f5/attachment.htm>