[arin-ppml] Request for Community Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

[Gerry E.. George]

Hello PPML Community!! 





Since the last PPML "summary" posting (of June 27), we have seen very little activity regarding Draft Policy ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 maximum allocation. 




Key aspects of the draft policy changes (in summary): 


1. Reducing the maximum allocation size: The policy seeks to decrease the maximum IPv4 allocation size issued from the waitlist from a /22 to a /24. 


2. Prioritizing new entrants: By granting automatic eligibility to those without existing IPv4 allocations, the policy intends to ensure that new organizations have a better chance of securing the resources they need - “All ISP organizations without any IPv4 addresses from ARIN automatically qualify for an initial allocation of a /24.” 





3. Addressing long waiting times: The current policy resulted in significant wait times (at the time, was assessed to be around three years) for new IPv4 allocations, and this change was intended to alleviate this issue. 




4. Qualified requesters will also be advised of alternative mechanism to obtain IPv4 addresses. 




Timelines: 

Proposal - 26 October 2023; 
Draft Policy - 21 November 2023; 
Revised - 14 February 2024; 30 September 2024; 27 June 2025; 




A key issue arose in the early stages that garnered substantial community interest and support, leading to a significant adjustment: the inclusion of a "grandfathering clause" to safeguard protections for individuals already on the waitlist. 




The last change was made and posted on June 27 and there was also a summary of comments and community positions posted to PPML. This most recent post elicited some comments indicating some support. However, the policy seems to be languishing as we have not really received any clear direction with regards to continued interest, overwhelming support or objections regarding the moving this draft policy forward or not. 







Consider the following: 
1. The problem statement no longer accurately reflects the current state of the Waitlist, and as such, may no longer be valid. The extended wait times have been reduced significantly since the initial problem statement submission, and the waitlist seems to be self-regulating, despite the number of entries on the Waitlist. 

i. Wait times have dropped from a high point in excess of 30 months (Sept 2023); 

ii. The last three distributions, recipients on the IPv4 Waiting List waited between 
18-21 months; 
iii. It is projected the 18-21 months wait will remain the same for the next few 
quarters; 

iv. Waitlist size: 2025: Jan 763; Feb 817; Mar 852; Aug 11: 916; 




2. Waiting List times are expected to remain at approximately 18-21 months, while continuing to fluctuate; 




3. For those unwilling to wait for the waitlist, alternatives such as the lease market exist; 




4. Community feedback has been mixed: 

i. Some community members support the policy, arguing that a /24 allocation is sufficient for many organizations and that the change will help address the IPv4 shortage; 
ii. Others argue that a /24 is inadequate and that the current policy framework is sufficient, even with longer waiting times; 
iii. Some have expressed concerns about the impact of the change on organizations that require larger allocations and the potential for the policy to encourage IPv6 adoption; 

iv. Some have said that there is no need for this policy, that the waitlist is working as it should; 




5. The author has indicated that he is no longer in support of the draft policy, for some of the reasons stated above; 




6. If there is any change in the existing situation which may warrant a revisiting of the waitlist, a new policy can be submitted for consideration that time; 







At this stage, we should be working toward a resolution and determining the course of action moving forward. Consequently, I am again requesting decisive feedback and clear guidance from the community on how the AC should advance with this draft policy. 







Question to the community (again): 





Q: Should we continue to work on this policy as written? 

Q: Should it be abandoned? 


We will have to consider the level of interest and the amount of feedback or lack thereof, in formulating a decision. A lack of responses will be interpreted as a lack of interest, and will also inform on the possible way forward. 







Kind regards. 

(and on behalf of Brian Jones) 
Gerry E. George 
ICT Consultant and Business Solutions Architect; 
Digi Solv , Inc. [P.O. Box 1677, Castries, Saint Lucia] 

Mobile : (758) 728-4858 / Int'l Office : (347) 450-3444 / Skype: DigiSolv 
Email : ggeorge at digisolv.com / LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerrygeorge/ 

Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20250812/1f8c8a4a/attachment-0001.htm>