[arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation
Tyler O'Meara
arin at tyleromeara.com
Wed Feb 21 11:45:42 EST 2024
Replying to just the following part:
> Well, that's another discussion. Newcomers don't have any and cannot do
> anything without a minimal IPv4 even if they prefectly deploy IPv6.
> Trying to force things only towards IPv6 ignoring the practical side sounds
> more like ideology.
Any organization which has deployed IPv6 and needs an IPv4 allocation just to
access legacy IPv4-only networks can and should acquire that IPv4 allocation
using section 4.10, which would be immediate rather than a 3+ year wait.
In light of the existence of sections 4.4 and 4.10, the principal purposes for
joining the IPv4 waitlist would seem to me to be either:
1) To support an IPv4-only deployment
2) To support or enable a dual stack deployment for situations where using NAT
is particularly irritating (i.e. servers)
Tyler
AS53727
On Wed, 2024-02-21 at 12:46 -0300, Fernando Frediani wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, 12:30 Owen DeLong, <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 21, 2024, at 07:20, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > >
> > > This rather seems to be a vague assumption as you didn't provide anything
> > > substantial for it to be a blocker to have a policy adjusted in order to
> > > contemplate only new entrants.
> > > Why is it bad ? Do you think it is still rational to keep supplying IP
> > > addresses to those who already have some in detriment to those who have
> > > nothing ?
> > I think any legitimate use of IPv4 addresses is no more or less worthy than
> > any other. I see no reason to elevate theoretical new entrants to the point
> > of depriving existing legitimate users.
>
> Oh yes, those who have already can never make a better usage of what they
> already have and really justify for more IP addresses (that don't exist) in
> detriment of newcomers ?
> There are countless ways to always better use of what one already has and it
> sounds very unreasonable to continue assigning more addresses to these
> organizations in times of exahustion. Need to balance things correctly, face
> reality and be reasonable given the current scenario.
> >
> > IPv4 is an obsolete technology. Preserving an IPv4 free pool against
> > legitimate demand to facilitate latecomers and laggards failure to deploy
> > IPv6 is simply not in the overall best interests of the internet.
>
> Well, that's another discussion. Newcomers don't have any and cannot do
> anything without a minimal IPv4 even if they prefectly deploy IPv6.
> Trying to force things only towards IPv6 ignoring the practical side sounds
> more like ideology.
> > >
> > > This is not unenforceable and just a supposition unsupported by real data.
> > > ARIN has means to develop ways to check these newer organizations and
> > > separate the possible fraudsters from the legit ones. Just before there it
> > > serves to inhibit a lot of organization to even request IPs under the
> > > waitlist making it much cleaner and fair. LACNIC has been doing it for
> > > years and it has proven to be successful in terms of fairness and
> > > possibility to check these organization requests correctly. Are we going
> > > to avoid having a policy which is the right thing to do just on the
> > > supposition that there will be fraud ?
> >
> >
> > While I stayed that the process in question was morally equivalent to fraud,
> > it is 100% legal and utterly indistinguishable from a legitimate new
> > entrant.
> >
> > The policy you are proposing is not only the wrong thing to do (see above),
> > it is also quite trivially worked around. One can legitimately spin up an
> > organization for a few hundred dollars and a few hours of work.
>
> That's a theory you have without knowing ARIN tools and possibilities.
> Again, it doesn't matter much the theoretical possibilities. There will always
> be unlimited. What matters most is to have as a policy what is correct, fair
> and in the interest of community.
>
> It is the interest of community that more organizarions and consequently users
> can connect to the Internet, develop new business and make up new technology
> and it is fair to think to make things to keep fitting newcomers to this
> industry.
>
> Fernando
> >
> > ARIN can prevent the recording of that organization’s subsequent acquisition
> > in the ARIN database, but that’s about all that ARIN can do.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > >
> > > Fernando
> > >
> > >
> > > On 21/02/2024 04:13, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Anyone using IP to conduct business should recognize that IPv4 is out
> > > > and they’ll need IPv6 to do business going forward.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I oppose Fernando’s idea that the waitlist should be limited to new
> > > > entrants. In addition to being bad policy, this is completely
> > > > unenforceable and only leads to widespread workarounds (which are
> > > > morally equivalent to fraud but probably don’t quite fit the legal
> > > > definition of the term). (The cost to spin up an organization to acquire
> > > > resources and then acquire the organization is trivial compared to the
> > > > value of the IPv4 resources obtained).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Owen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 20, 2024, at 19:28, Denis Motova <dmotova at brcrude.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Owen:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I appreciate your thoughtful and constructive suggestion.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There are a couple of factors at play here that I'd like to address
> > > > > directly, if possible:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the Existing Waiting List - I'm uncertain about the
> > > > > rationale behind altering the current waiting list and applying new
> > > > > criteria to members who have already been approved. I believe any new
> > > > > policy should not retroactively affect those who have already
> > > > > undergone approval. Approved members should continue to receive the
> > > > > resources they were initially granted based on their justification
> > > > > until such point as new users are added under the new policy (after
> > > > > its approval) and its updated distribution methods are implemented.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As for the New Policy for Future Applicants - Future applicants may be
> > > > > required to select from a /22, /23, or /24 allocation, with the
> > > > > decision weighted based on the considerations Owen has mentioned
> > > > > regarding the allocation of new resources.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I support the sentiments expressed by Fernando Frediani; there should
> > > > > be a reasonable approach that balances the need to avoid impacting the
> > > > > size of routing tables while still providing users with the
> > > > > flexibility they require to conduct business rather than treating IPs
> > > > > as a hobby.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks again,
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 20 Feb 2024, at 21:53, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Each waitlist recipient specifies a desired block size and a minimum
> > > > > > acceptable block size. Wait list recipients can change their minimum
> > > > > > acceptable block size at any time so long as it is no shorter than
> > > > > > their originally approved block size.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When ARIN receives a block to fulfill a waitlist request, the first
> > > > > > waitlister in line with a minimum acceptable block size ≥ the
> > > > > > available block size gets it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In other words, let’s say we have the following waitlist:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Party Approved
> > > > > > Minimum acceptable
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A /23
> > > > > > /23
> > > > > >
> > > > > > B /22
> > > > > > /23
> > > > > >
> > > > > > C /22
> > > > > > /24
> > > > > >
> > > > > > D /24
> > > > > > /24
> > > > > >
> > > > > > E /22
> > > > > > /23
> > > > > >
> > > > > > F /22
> > > > > > /24
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let’s say ARIN receives a /24. The first /24 would go to party C.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If ARIN then received another /24, it would go to party D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If ARIN then received a /22, Parties A and B would receive a /23
> > > > > > each.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Owen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Feb 16, 2024, at 17:01, Denis Motova <dmotova at brcrude.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Scott,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I appreciate the innovative perspective and thorough thought
> > > > > > > process you've articulated in your email.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are a couple of points I'd like to highlight:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The new policy shouldn’t be retroactive, it should be only a
> > > > > > > policy going forward. I mention it only because I think it’s
> > > > > > > important to make that distinction clear.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Secondly, I find your proposed approach in the second paragraph
> > > > > > > intriguing. It's far more nuanced than simply restricting everyone
> > > > > > > to a maximum of a /24. I believe you're onto something promising
> > > > > > > here, and it could serve as a sensible strategy moving forward.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding the issue of "time," it's important to acknowledge the
> > > > > > > existence of a secondary market for IPs. If there's significant
> > > > > > > pressure, purchasing IPs should be considered a viable option
> > > > > > > rather than solely relying on expedited access through the waiting
> > > > > > > list. Maintaining a balance is key; those with urgent needs can
> > > > > > > acquire IPs through purchase, while others can join the waiting
> > > > > > > list and adhere to the traditional process. Personally, I believe
> > > > > > > this approach strikes a fair and equitable balance.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 16 Feb 2024, at 21:14, Scott Leibrand
> > > > > > > > <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The point isn't to "improve the visual appearance of the waiting
> > > > > > > > list numbers". Everyone knows the free pool is empty except for
> > > > > > > > the reclaimed dregs, and we're deciding who should get how much
> > > > > > > > of the dregs. The point of this proposal, limiting the maximum
> > > > > > > > allocation to /24, is to allocate smaller netblocks to
> > > > > > > > organizations that have been waiting a shorter amount of time,
> > > > > > > > instead of making everyone wait longer while those with a non-
> > > > > > > > time-sensitive justification for a larger block can get one and
> > > > > > > > those who only need a smaller block wait in line longer.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Another alternative to limiting everyone to a /24 would be to
> > > > > > > > prioritize the waitlist such that everyone's place in line is
> > > > > > > > determined by how long they've been waiting divided by how many
> > > > > > > > /24s they're requesting. So at any given time, we might be
> > > > > > > > fulfilling /24 requests that have been waiting 6 months, /23
> > > > > > > > requests that have been waiting a year, and /22 requests that
> > > > > > > > have been waiting 2 years. (Or 1, 2, and 4 years, respectively.)
> > > > > > > > That way no one is penalized for accepting a smaller block, and
> > > > > > > > an organization who can usefully use a /24 now and a /24 later
> > > > > > > > gets a /23 worth of space in the same amount of time as someone
> > > > > > > > holding out for a contiguous /23.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -Scott
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 12:56 PM Denis Motova
> > > > > > > > <dmotova at brcrude.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dear William,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I appreciate your message and your input.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have some reservations about agreeing with the statement you
> > > > > > > > > made, and I'll explain my reasoning below:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I strongly believe that there are numerous legitimate
> > > > > > > > > businesses currently on the waiting list seeking IP space
> > > > > > > > > allocations of /22, /23, and /24. By removing the option for
> > > > > > > > > these allocations, we essentially transform the waiting list
> > > > > > > > > into what you described in a previous post as catering to
> > > > > > > > > "hobbyists and speculators." It's unlikely that any serious
> > > > > > > > > company would require only 256 IPs within a network; that's
> > > > > > > > > essentially a micro-network.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As you are aware, there are multiple avenues for obtaining IP
> > > > > > > > > space, including the waiting list and authorized purchase
> > > > > > > > > methods. From my perspective, if a business urgently needs IP
> > > > > > > > > space, they would likely follow the example of AWS and invest
> > > > > > > > > in acquiring the necessary resources rather than wait through
> > > > > > > > > the waiting list.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For instance, one of our customers acquired a /17 by
> > > > > > > > > purchasing it from the market after providing justifications
> > > > > > > > > to ARIN for the IP space. While this involved a significant
> > > > > > > > > financial investment, it demonstrated the seriousness of their
> > > > > > > > > business needs.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I fail to see the value in limiting everyone's network size
> > > > > > > > > solely to improve the visual appearance of the waiting list
> > > > > > > > > numbers.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you once again for your collaborative spirit and
> > > > > > > > > feedback.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 16 Feb 2024, at 15:52, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 8:52 AM Denis Motova
> > > > > > > > > > <dmotova at brcrude.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > A. Decreasing the allocation to a /24 means that new
> > > > > > > > > > > allocation
> > > > > > > > > > > holders would receive a minuscule network, hardly
> > > > > > > > > > > sufficient for
> > > > > > > > > > > small to mid-sized deployments.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > At this point, the wait list is for hobbyists and
> > > > > > > > > > speculators: people
> > > > > > > > > > who can afford to wait, which a serious business cannot.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tell me I'm wrong.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Bill Herrin
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > William Herrin
> > > > > > > > > > bill at herrin.us
> > > > > > > > > > https://bill.herrin.us/
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > 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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list