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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 21, 2024, at 15:34, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

I never argued that… I argued that by definition, they do not exist today. That by definition, their need is both future and theoretical.

The fact that there have been new entrants in the past in the LACNIC region is not proof that there will be new entrants in the future in the ARIN region.

>> 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.

If they are implementing IPv6 and only need a small amount of v4 to bootstrap their IPv6 operations, which is your claim, then they exactly fit 4.10, so your argument is specious at best.

>>>> 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.
> 
Yes, YOU made those decisions for YOUR network. Now you are trying to force those decisions (specifically deployment of CGNAT) onto others through policy. No sale here.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20240221/b6fdcb94/attachment.htm>