[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-11: IPv4 Transition
scott
scott at solarnetone.org
Fri Jan 31 19:11:34 EST 2025
Hi Preston,
Ah! Pardon my confusion. This seems to be a reasonable goal. How extant
is this need?
Scott
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025, Preston Ursini via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> To clarify, ITERP does not propose to allow the transfer of 4.10 space, but instead allow ISPs to reallocate /28 and /29, (or even /30 /31) to an End-User wanting to do things such as run their own Dual-Stack DNS, Dual Stack Load Balancers, or even CG-NAT implementations. IPv6-only networks large enough but not multi-homed via BGP. Many enterprise networks or other content networks don’t run BGP or require an entire /24, but only need a very small address space reallocated to them for their IPv6 networks. Limiting the reallocations to a maximum of a /28 makes abusing this policy difficult.
>
> Preston Ursini
>
>
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 21:32:31 +0000
>> From: John Sweeting <jsweeting at arin.net>
>> To: scott <scott at solarnetone.org>
>> Cc: Jones Brian <bjones at vt.edu>, ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net>, Jones
>> Brian <bjones at vt.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-11: IPv4 Transition
>> Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP)
>> Message-ID: <6805FF61-48C6-4BB4-8341-959173DF3FA2 at arin.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> FYI 4.10 space can only be transferred under NRPM section 8.2 Mergers, Acquisitions and Reorganizations. When being transferred under 8.2 the recipient organization must submit a notarized affidavit that the space will continue to be used in compliance with section 4.10 or return the space.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2025, at 3:00?PM, scott <scott at solarnetone.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> ?Hi Brian,
>>>
>>> My take on this is that folks may want to abuse 4.10 if they can then transfer the resources to another entity. The cost of organizing an entity is far less than the "market value" of a /24, which will encourage gaming this system. IMHO, 4.10 is for "I am building a network, and I need these resources to transition or support my v6 deployment." As such, M&A is problably the only legit reason to want to transfer these resources, but that can be gamed too... IIRC John Sweeting reported the recovery of some 7M addresses from a similar scheme a couple of years ago.
>>>
>>> In summary, we should restrict the transfer of 4.10, IMHO.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025, Jones, Brian wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As shepherds of Draft Policy ARIN-2024-11 Kaitlyn and I would very much like
>>>> to refocus the discussion surrounding it. When this was circulated to the
>>>> PPML last October there was some discussion, but much of it was not directed
>>>> at the root issues associated with these proposed changes.
>>>>
>>>> My very unofficial hallway discussions indicate the space that gets
>>>> allocated from section 4.10 of the Number Resource Policy Manual is a large
>>>> target for those wishing to do other things with that space than convert
>>>> their organization to IPv6.
>>>>
>>>> This section was never intended to allocate resources that would then be
>>>> reallocated to another entity or used for any other purpose than to allow
>>>> for the conversion of the applicant to IPv6.
>>>>
>>>> The policy experience report given by John Sweeting at ARIN 54 indicated
>>>> that at the current rate of allocations from section 4.10 of the NRPM there
>>>> should be enough to last through the year 2050 or approximately 25 years.
>>>> Keep in mind that the 4.10 dedicated pool has a mandate to be replenished
>>>> when it gets down below a 3 year supply. This would mean any ARIN recovered
>>>> IPv4 address space would come back into this pool for replenishment instead
>>>> of the waitlist once this threshold is reached.
>>>>
>>>> So with these things in mind my question to the community is do we really
>>>> need to allow reallocations from applicants of this dedicated space as this
>>>> policy is suggesting or should each entity that needs IPv4 space to
>>>> facilitate their transition to IPv6 continue to apply for their own /24 as
>>>> the policy is currently written?
>>>> Thank you in advance for your input and feedback.
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>> On 25 October 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted ?ARIN-prop-338:
>>>> IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP)? as a Draft Policy.
>>>>
>>>> *Draft Policy ARIN-2024-11 is below and can be found at:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_11
>>>>
>>>> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
>>>> evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this draft policy with
>>>> ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy
>>>> Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
>>>>
>>>> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>>>> * Technically Sound
>>>> * Supported by the Community
>>>>
>>>> The PDP can be found at:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
>>>>
>>>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
>>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2024-11: IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy
>>>> (ITERP)
>>>>
>>>> Problem Statement:
>>>>
>>>> As the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses continues, ISPs and end-users face
>>>> increasing challenges in managing their transition to IPv6. Many end-users
>>>> require small amounts of IPv4 space to implement technologies like
>>>> Carrier-Grade NAT (CG-NAT) or dual-stack environments, which are critical
>>>> for their own IPv6 deployment efforts. Under the current NRPM 4.10 policy,
>>>> ISPs are prohibited from reallocating portions of their IPv4 blocks to
>>>> end-users, forcing these organizations to request larger, inefficiently used
>>>> blocks (e.g., /24s) from ARIN.
>>>>
>>>> This practice contributes to the unnecessary consumption of scarce IPv4
>>>> resources, as many end-users only need small blocks (e.g., /29s or /28s) for
>>>> their CG-NAT and IPv6 transition processes. The inability to reallocate
>>>> these smaller blocks results in wasteful allocations and hampers the overall
>>>> efficiency of IPv4 address management.
>>>>
>>>> Without a mechanism to allow ISPs to reallocate small portions of their NRPM
>>>> 4.10 space to qualified end-users, the current policy inadvertently
>>>> encourages inefficient IPv4 address utilization, which conflicts with ARIN?s
>>>> goal of maximizing the use of remaining IPv4 resources while facilitating
>>>> the widespread adoption of IPv6.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is twofold:
>>>>
>>>> 1. End-users are forced to request larger, underutilized IPv4 blocks for
>>>> their IPv6 transition needs.
>>>>
>>>> 2. ISPs are unable to efficiently manage and reallocate their IPv4 resources
>>>> under NRPM 4.10 to meet end-user demands for small-scale CG-NAT and IPv6
>>>> transition deployments.
>>>>
>>>> Policy Statement:
>>>>
>>>> Add these bullets to section 4.10 of the NRPM to facilitate ARIN approved
>>>> reallocation of 4.10 resources.
>>>>
>>>> * ISPs may reassign a /29 or /28 for their direct downstream customers for
>>>> IPv6 transition only. ARIN reserves the right to validate any downstream
>>>> allocations from ISPs to direct customers.
>>>>
>>>> * Anyone wishing to perform a reassignment of a 4.10 allocation must be
>>>> approved through ARIN and meet all the justification requirements of this
>>>> policy.
>>>>
>>>> Comments:
>>>>
>>>> IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP) and Its Impact on
>>>> CG-NAT, IPv6, and Efficient Resource Use
>>>>
>>>> Utilization of Reallocated IP Space by End-Users and Small ISPs for CG-NAT
>>>>
>>>> Under the IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP), end-users
>>>> and even small ISPs can efficiently use reallocated IPv4 space for CG-NAT
>>>> (Carrier-Grade NAT) while leveraging their IPv6 deployments. Many smaller
>>>> ISPs, particularly those that only have NRPM 4.10 space and limited IPv4
>>>> allocations, could benefit from this policy by reallocating IPv4 subnets
>>>> (e.g., /29 or /28) to their customers or other ISPs who require minimal IPv4
>>>> addresses for CG-NAT in dual-stack environments.
>>>>
>>>> Through the use of BGP for IPv6, along with alternative IPv4 multi-homing
>>>> technologies like source and policy based routing combined with CG-NAT,
>>>> end-users or small ISPs could even connect to multiple providers utilizing
>>>> IPv6 natively while performing CG-NAT towards multiple providers over IPv4.
>>>> This approach helps balance traffic, increase redundancy, and achieve better
>>>> failover capabilities. By employing IPv6 for outward-facing traffic and
>>>> CG-NAT for IPv4 communication, smaller networks can provide their customers
>>>> a seamless experience without consuming large amounts of IPv4 space.
>>>>
>>>> Eligibility and Address Space Efficiency
>>>>
>>>> This policy amendment is strictly intended for organizations that would
>>>> otherwise be eligible for a /24 under NRPM 4.10. Instead of receiving an
>>>> entire /24 (256 addresses) that may go largely underutilized, these
>>>> end-users could now request smaller blocks (e.g., /29s or /28s) from
>>>> multiple providers that only hold NRPM 4.10 space. This allows for much more
>>>> efficient use of IPv4 resources, as the smaller allocations can directly
>>>> serve CG-NAT needs without wasting a significant portion of the address
>>>> space.
>>>>
>>>> Such end-users are typically transitioning to IPv6 and need small amounts of
>>>> IPv4 space only for backward compatibility and legacy systems. This policy
>>>> ensures that they don?t have to unnecessarily consume large blocks of IPv4
>>>> addresses that are rapidly depleting, especially since most of their traffic
>>>> will run over IPv6.
>>>>
>>>> Incentivizing IPv6 Deployment by ISPs
>>>>
>>>> This policy can also incentivize ISPs to evangelize IPv6 deployment to their
>>>> customers. As the ISPs are held accountable for monitoring and reporting the
>>>> usage of reallocated space, they are motivated to actively assist their
>>>> customers in migrating to IPv6 to ensure compliance with ARIN?s policies. By
>>>> reallocating IPv4 space under the NRPM 4.10 policy, ISPs will naturally push
>>>> for greater IPv6 adoption and encourage their end-users to take advantage of
>>>> the superior capabilities and scalability of IPv6.
>>>>
>>>> In many cases, ISPs can act as trusted technology advocates, guiding their
>>>> customers through the transition process, offering resources, and providing
>>>> technical support for deploying dual-stack environments. This not only
>>>> supports IPv6 growth but also fosters stronger partnerships between ISPs and
>>>> their customers as they collectively work toward the next generation of
>>>> networking technologies.
>>>>
>>>> Supporting ISPs with Only NRPM 4.10 Space and IPv6
>>>>
>>>> Many ISPs, particularly newer or smaller ones, may only have access to NRPM
>>>> 4.10 IPv4 space and IPv6 allocations. These ISPs often lack sufficient
>>>> general-purpose IPv4 space but are fully invested in deploying IPv6 to their
>>>> customers. The IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy provides an
>>>> efficient and pragmatic way for these ISPs to serve end-users with
>>>> small-scale CG-NAT needs, helping them facilitate IPv6 adoption without
>>>> having to apply for entire /24s of IPv4 space that they don?t require.
>>>>
>>>> By allowing the reallocation of small IPv4 blocks to end-users for CG-NAT
>>>> and IPv6 dual-stack environments, IPv4 exhaustion can be minimized, and
>>>> numbering resources can be more efficiently utilized. These ISPs can push
>>>> their customers toward IPv6 while offering minimal IPv4 resources needed for
>>>> NAT and legacy services. This policy, therefore, promotes responsible IPv4
>>>> stewardship and accelerates the migration to IPv6.
>>>>
>>>> Conclusion: Efficient Use of Resources and Push for IPv6 Adoption
>>>>
>>>> The IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP) ensures that IPv4
>>>> address space is used efficiently by allowing small allocations to end-users
>>>> for specific transitional technologies like CG-NAT. By utilizing BGP for
>>>> IPv6 and multi-homing technologies, end-users can effectively route traffic
>>>> while minimizing their reliance on IPv4. This policy enables ISPs,
>>>> particularly those that only have NRPM 4.10 space, to act as leaders in the
>>>> push for IPv6, ensuring that numbering resources are preserved while
>>>> advancing the deployment of the next generation of Internet technology.
>>>>
>>>> Other technologies are also available, such as routing IPv4 space over IPv6,
>>>> which is supported in many modern routing systems, meaning a /32 of IPv4
>>>> space could be routed to an end-user over a native IPv6 network with no
>>>> other space involved. This policy would encourage ISPs to evangelize and
>>>> accelerate the deployment of an IPv6 Internet by making deploying IPv6 even
>>>> more beneficial to end users, while also preserving the precious remaining
>>>> IPv4 address space.
>>>>
>>>> By embracing this approach, ARIN can foster greater IPv6 adoption, prevent
>>>> IPv4 depletion, and empower ISPs and end-users alike to move forward with
>>>> innovative, future-proof network architectures.
>>>>
>>>> This policy provides a more efficient and responsible approach to achieving
>>>> the goals initially intended by ARIN-2008-5, which aimed to allow the use of
>>>> longer prefixes than /24s without causing the complications associated with
>>>> ARIN allocating such longer prefixes directly.
>>>>
>>>> When ARIN-2008-5 was introduced, the idea was to allow networks to receive
>>>> smaller allocations than /24, recognizing that many organizations,
>>>> particularly those transitioning to IPv6, do not require a full /24 for
>>>> their IPv4 needs. However, allocating smaller prefixes directly from ARIN
>>>> would have created routing and administrative challenges, including concerns
>>>> about route fragmentation and maintaining the integrity of the global
>>>> routing table.
>>>>
>>>> The IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP) resolves these
>>>> issues by enabling ISPs to handle the reallocation of small IPv4 blocks
>>>> (such as /29 or /28) from their NRPM 4.10 space, instead of ARIN directly
>>>> assigning longer prefixes. This allows for more granular and flexible use of
>>>> address space without fragmenting ARIN?s allocations, ensuring that the
>>>> allocations remain efficient and manageable.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, by placing responsibility on the ISPs to ensure proper
>>>> utilization, ITERP:
>>>>
>>>> ? Minimizes the risk of route table bloat, as ISPs manage these smaller
>>>> blocks within their own infrastructure.
>>>> ? Ensures IPv4 allocations are tied to specific, justified use cases (such
>>>> as CG-NAT and IPv6 transition), aligning with the original intent of
>>>> ARIN-2008-5 to avoid wasteful consumption of IPv4 addresses.
>>>>
>>>> In doing so, this policy not only promotes efficient use of IPv4 space but
>>>> also strengthens the transition to IPv6 by encouraging ISPs to work closely
>>>> with their customers on deploying dual-stack environments, thus driving
>>>> greater IPv6 adoption. This policy balances the need for flexibility in
>>>> smaller allocations while preventing the complications that could arise from
>>>> direct ARIN allocations of smaller prefixes.
>>>>
>>>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>> _
>>>> Brian Jones
>>>> ARIN Advisory Council
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 17:05:42 -0600
>> From: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
>> To: "Jones, Brian" <bjones at vt.edu>
>> Cc: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-11: IPv4 Transition
>> Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP)
>> Message-ID:
>> <CAN-Dau09EC-HtrdZWxcAeksa6qhRtbfCyuTJH_mBQy2+HYud9A at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> The current 4.10 envisions directly allocating a whole /24 to an end user
>> and having them operate their own NAT64 IPv6 transition service; in some
>> cases, this isn't very efficient. Some smaller end users may not need a
>> full 24 for their NAT64 needs.
>>
>> I interpret the proposal as allowing for NAT64-as-a-Service where the
>> customer is IPv6-only, and a service provider provides the NAT64,
>> dedicating a small IPv4 pool, less than /24 per customer for each
>> customer's NAT64 needs. This would allow for more efficient use of the 4.10
>> pool, and such a use case would be consistent with 4.10 rules if the
>> NAT64-as-a-Service provided reassignments of smaller blocks to its
>> customers.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 1:46?PM Jones, Brian <bjones at vt.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As shepherds of Draft Policy ARIN-2024-11 Kaitlyn and I would very much
>>> like to refocus the discussion surrounding it. When this was circulated to
>>> the PPML last October there was some discussion, but much of it was not
>>> directed at the root issues associated with these proposed changes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My very unofficial hallway discussions indicate the space that gets
>>> allocated from section 4.10 of the Number Resource Policy Manual is a large
>>> target for those wishing to do other things with that space than convert
>>> their organization to IPv6.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This section was never intended to allocate resources that would then be
>>> reallocated to another entity or used for any other purpose than to allow
>>> for the conversion of the applicant to IPv6.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The policy experience report given by John Sweeting at ARIN 54 indicated
>>> that *at the current rate* of allocations from section 4.10 of the NRPM
>>> there should be enough to last through the year 2050 or approximately 25
>>> years. Keep in mind that the 4.10 dedicated pool has a mandate to be
>>> replenished when it gets down below a 3 year supply. This would mean any
>>> ARIN recovered IPv4 address space would come back into this pool for
>>> replenishment instead of the waitlist once this threshold is reached.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So with these things in mind my question to the community is do we really
>>> need to allow reallocations from applicants of this dedicated space as this
>>> policy is suggesting or should each entity that needs IPv4 space to
>>> facilitate their transition to IPv6 continue to apply for their own /24 as
>>> the policy is currently written?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance for your input and feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25 October 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
>>> ?ARIN-prop-338: IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP)? as
>>> a Draft Policy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Draft Policy ARIN-2024-11 is below and can be found at:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_11
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
>>> evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this draft policy with
>>> ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the
>>> Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>>>
>>> * Technically Sound
>>>
>>> * Supported by the Community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The PDP can be found at:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2024-11: IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy
>>> (ITERP)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Problem Statement:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses continues, ISPs and end-users face
>>> increasing challenges in managing their transition to IPv6. Many end-users
>>> require small amounts of IPv4 space to implement technologies like
>>> Carrier-Grade NAT (CG-NAT) or dual-stack environments, which are critical
>>> for their own IPv6 deployment efforts. Under the current NRPM 4.10 policy,
>>> ISPs are prohibited from reallocating portions of their IPv4 blocks to
>>> end-users, forcing these organizations to request larger, inefficiently
>>> used blocks (e.g., /24s) from ARIN.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This practice contributes to the unnecessary consumption of scarce IPv4
>>> resources, as many end-users only need small blocks (e.g., /29s or /28s)
>>> for their CG-NAT and IPv6 transition processes. The inability to reallocate
>>> these smaller blocks results in wasteful allocations and hampers the
>>> overall efficiency of IPv4 address management.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Without a mechanism to allow ISPs to reallocate small portions of their
>>> NRPM 4.10 space to qualified end-users, the current policy inadvertently
>>> encourages inefficient IPv4 address utilization, which conflicts with
>>> ARIN?s goal of maximizing the use of remaining IPv4 resources while
>>> facilitating the widespread adoption of IPv6.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is twofold:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. End-users are forced to request larger, underutilized IPv4 blocks for
>>> their IPv6 transition needs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. ISPs are unable to efficiently manage and reallocate their IPv4
>>> resources under NRPM 4.10 to meet end-user demands for small-scale CG-NAT
>>> and IPv6 transition deployments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Policy Statement:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Add these bullets to section 4.10 of the NRPM to facilitate ARIN approved
>>> reallocation of 4.10 resources.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * ISPs may reassign a /29 or /28 for their direct downstream customers for
>>> IPv6 transition only. ARIN reserves the right to validate any downstream
>>> allocations from ISPs to direct customers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * Anyone wishing to perform a reassignment of a 4.10 allocation must be
>>> approved through ARIN and meet all the justification requirements of this
>>> policy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Comments:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP) and Its Impact on
>>> CG-NAT, IPv6, and Efficient Resource Use
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Utilization of Reallocated IP Space by End-Users and Small ISPs for CG-NAT
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Under the IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP),
>>> end-users and even small ISPs can efficiently use reallocated IPv4 space
>>> for CG-NAT (Carrier-Grade NAT) while leveraging their IPv6 deployments.
>>> Many smaller ISPs, particularly those that only have NRPM 4.10 space and
>>> limited IPv4 allocations, could benefit from this policy by reallocating
>>> IPv4 subnets (e.g., /29 or /28) to their customers or other ISPs who
>>> require minimal IPv4 addresses for CG-NAT in dual-stack environments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Through the use of BGP for IPv6, along with alternative IPv4 multi-homing
>>> technologies like source and policy based routing combined with CG-NAT,
>>> end-users or small ISPs could even connect to multiple providers utilizing
>>> IPv6 natively while performing CG-NAT towards multiple providers over IPv4.
>>> This approach helps balance traffic, increase redundancy, and achieve
>>> better failover capabilities. By employing IPv6 for outward-facing traffic
>>> and CG-NAT for IPv4 communication, smaller networks can provide their
>>> customers a seamless experience without consuming large amounts of IPv4
>>> space.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eligibility and Address Space Efficiency
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This policy amendment is strictly intended for organizations that would
>>> otherwise be eligible for a /24 under NRPM 4.10. Instead of receiving an
>>> entire /24 (256 addresses) that may go largely underutilized, these
>>> end-users could now request smaller blocks (e.g., /29s or /28s) from
>>> multiple providers that only hold NRPM 4.10 space. This allows for much
>>> more efficient use of IPv4 resources, as the smaller allocations can
>>> directly serve CG-NAT needs without wasting a significant portion of the
>>> address space.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Such end-users are typically transitioning to IPv6 and need small amounts
>>> of IPv4 space only for backward compatibility and legacy systems. This
>>> policy ensures that they don?t have to unnecessarily consume large blocks
>>> of IPv4 addresses that are rapidly depleting, especially since most of
>>> their traffic will run over IPv6.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Incentivizing IPv6 Deployment by ISPs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This policy can also incentivize ISPs to evangelize IPv6 deployment to
>>> their customers. As the ISPs are held accountable for monitoring and
>>> reporting the usage of reallocated space, they are motivated to actively
>>> assist their customers in migrating to IPv6 to ensure compliance with
>>> ARIN?s policies. By reallocating IPv4 space under the NRPM 4.10 policy,
>>> ISPs will naturally push for greater IPv6 adoption and encourage their
>>> end-users to take advantage of the superior capabilities and scalability of
>>> IPv6.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In many cases, ISPs can act as trusted technology advocates, guiding their
>>> customers through the transition process, offering resources, and providing
>>> technical support for deploying dual-stack environments. This not only
>>> supports IPv6 growth but also fosters stronger partnerships between ISPs
>>> and their customers as they collectively work toward the next generation of
>>> networking technologies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Supporting ISPs with Only NRPM 4.10 Space and IPv6
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Many ISPs, particularly newer or smaller ones, may only have access to
>>> NRPM 4.10 IPv4 space and IPv6 allocations. These ISPs often lack sufficient
>>> general-purpose IPv4 space but are fully invested in deploying IPv6 to
>>> their customers. The IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy
>>> provides an efficient and pragmatic way for these ISPs to serve end-users
>>> with small-scale CG-NAT needs, helping them facilitate IPv6 adoption
>>> without having to apply for entire /24s of IPv4 space that they don?t
>>> require.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> By allowing the reallocation of small IPv4 blocks to end-users for CG-NAT
>>> and IPv6 dual-stack environments, IPv4 exhaustion can be minimized, and
>>> numbering resources can be more efficiently utilized. These ISPs can push
>>> their customers toward IPv6 while offering minimal IPv4 resources needed
>>> for NAT and legacy services. This policy, therefore, promotes responsible
>>> IPv4 stewardship and accelerates the migration to IPv6.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Conclusion: Efficient Use of Resources and Push for IPv6 Adoption
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP) ensures that
>>> IPv4 address space is used efficiently by allowing small allocations to
>>> end-users for specific transitional technologies like CG-NAT. By utilizing
>>> BGP for IPv6 and multi-homing technologies, end-users can effectively route
>>> traffic while minimizing their reliance on IPv4. This policy enables ISPs,
>>> particularly those that only have NRPM 4.10 space, to act as leaders in the
>>> push for IPv6, ensuring that numbering resources are preserved while
>>> advancing the deployment of the next generation of Internet technology.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Other technologies are also available, such as routing IPv4 space over
>>> IPv6, which is supported in many modern routing systems, meaning a /32 of
>>> IPv4 space could be routed to an end-user over a native IPv6 network with
>>> no other space involved. This policy would encourage ISPs to evangelize and
>>> accelerate the deployment of an IPv6 Internet by making deploying IPv6 even
>>> more beneficial to end users, while also preserving the precious remaining
>>> IPv4 address space.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> By embracing this approach, ARIN can foster greater IPv6 adoption, prevent
>>> IPv4 depletion, and empower ISPs and end-users alike to move forward with
>>> innovative, future-proof network architectures.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This policy provides a more efficient and responsible approach to
>>> achieving the goals initially intended by ARIN-2008-5, which aimed to allow
>>> the use of longer prefixes than /24s without causing the complications
>>> associated with ARIN allocating such longer prefixes directly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When ARIN-2008-5 was introduced, the idea was to allow networks to receive
>>> smaller allocations than /24, recognizing that many organizations,
>>> particularly those transitioning to IPv6, do not require a full /24 for
>>> their IPv4 needs. However, allocating smaller prefixes directly from ARIN
>>> would have created routing and administrative challenges, including
>>> concerns about route fragmentation and maintaining the integrity of the
>>> global routing table.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP) resolves these
>>> issues by enabling ISPs to handle the reallocation of small IPv4 blocks
>>> (such as /29 or /28) from their NRPM 4.10 space, instead of ARIN directly
>>> assigning longer prefixes. This allows for more granular and flexible use
>>> of address space without fragmenting ARIN?s allocations, ensuring that the
>>> allocations remain efficient and manageable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Furthermore, by placing responsibility on the ISPs to ensure proper
>>> utilization, ITERP:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ? Minimizes the risk of route table bloat, as ISPs manage these smaller
>>> blocks within their own infrastructure.
>>>
>>> ? Ensures IPv4 allocations are tied to specific, justified use cases (such
>>> as CG-NAT and IPv6 transition), aligning with the original intent of
>>> ARIN-2008-5 to avoid wasteful consumption of IPv4 addresses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In doing so, this policy not only promotes efficient use of IPv4 space but
>>> also strengthens the transition to IPv6 by encouraging ISPs to work closely
>>> with their customers on deploying dual-stack environments, thus driving
>>> greater IPv6 adoption. This policy balances the need for flexibility in
>>> smaller allocations while preventing the complications that could arise
>>> from direct ARIN allocations of smaller prefixes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _
>>> Brian Jones
>>> ARIN Advisory Council
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ===============================================
>> 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/20250131/63619e2d/attachment.htm>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML mailing list
>> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 235, Issue 10
>> ******************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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