[arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

[Fernando Frediani]

On 21/02/2024 20:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>> <clip>
>>
>> This is LACNIC waiting list which has always assigned *only to new 
>> entrants*. It is currently easily on 5 years wait time. Is this still 
>> to vague ?
>>
>> https://www.lacnic.net/6335/2/lacnic/ipv4-address-waitlist
>
> And? What does this have to do with whether it’s good policy in the 
> ARIN region or not?

It has to do with your argument that there will not be new entrants that 
justify having the policy only to fulfill them.
>
> IMHO, it’s also bad policy in the LACNIC region, but I have less of a 
> stake in the outcome in their region, so I don’t argue as strongly there.
> Also, since I don’t speak Spanish, participation on their policy list 
> would be difficult for me. It works for the majority in the region so 
> I am not complaining about this, merely stating it as fact.
>
> With few exceptions, I still see no valid reason to disadvantage 
> existing need for speculative future use. Those exceptions are well 
> covered by 4.4 and 4.10 (which LACNIC does not have equivalent 
> policies to the best of my knowledge, so perhaps that is why they 
> limit to new entrants here).

4.4 and 4.10 don't cover all minimal needs of new entrants in ARIN as 
most of them are not critical infrastructure and cannot use 4.10 for any 
type of usage. LACNIC does have a 4.4 equivalent.
>
>>
>>     This is purely your opinion. In my opinion, you shouldn’t get to
>>     make that decision on behalf of existing organizations and tell
>>     them how to run their networks.
>>
>>
>> Oh again this.
>> Yes people can chose whatever they want to run their networks, but 
>> one that keeps refusing to implement CGNAT in their operation and 
>> wishes the luxury to keep assigning a Public IPv4 to each individual 
>> customer, we as policymakers are able to limit their choices by 
>> letting them to go to the transfer market in order to fullfil their 
>> choice and not mess with a bet in the waiting list.
>
> If we think that’s good policy, yes, we can do that. Personally, I do 
> not think forcing CGNAT in order to provide possible addresses for 
> some as yet unknown future use is a good policy tradeoff. Obviously 
> you think it is good policy. That’s fine, we can agree to disagree and 
> I’m sure others will express opinions as well.

Do you think I like to build CGNAT ? At least I build along with well 
deployed IPv6 and with the minimal amount of IPv4 needed for users to 
reach the entire internet. No RIRs or policies forced me to do that. I 
make these decisions looking at the current scenarios and taking in 
consideration the natural evolution of IPv4 exhaustion which hits 
everyone the same way.

Fernando

>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20240221/cb127864/attachment.htm>