[arin-ppml] Discussion: ARIN-prop-348 (SPARK – Starter Pack for ARIN Resource Kit)

Fri Oct 24 01:33:16 EDT 2025

Thanks Mohibul:
Chiming in as the policy author, after discussing this with ARIN staff and the shepherds, it would appear that this would be possible to implement without a change in policy and would have to go through ARIN's ACSP.

It will be likely that I’ll be withdrawing the proposal and resubmitting it to the ACSP in due course.

I believe ARIN Staff will be updating the website with the latest modification of the policy document that trims its scope to fit within the NRPM, it still likely needs to go through the ACSP, not the PDP.

If however, through the ACSP process they later find that they will need a policy to accomplish this, it can be reintroduced.

If anyone has anything to add, I’m all ears, but I'm leaning towards withdrawal as to not overburden the AC with unnecessary or redundant work.

Preston Louis Ursini

> On Oct 24, 2025, at 12:21 AM, Mohibul Mahmud <mohibul.mahmud at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Preston, Owen, and ARIN Community,
> 
> I appreciate the ongoing discussion about ARIN-prop-348 (SPARK). This proposal is important for helping new networks grow and adopt IPv6. As a candidate for the Advisory Council, I think we need to make sure the final policy clearly addresses the key technical questions discussed.
> 
> Deciding the Right IPv6 Allocation Size
> There’s been talk about what the minimum size for the initial IPv6 allocation should be (for example, /40 vs. /32). We need to make this clear in the policy.
> 
> Suggestion: The policy should specify the exact size of the initial IPv6 allocation for SPARK. This should be based on how networks grow over time, to avoid having to renumber networks later on.
> 
> Making Sure Networks Can Grow Without Waste
> We need to make sure new operators can expand their networks easily, while also not wasting too many IP addresses.
> 
> Suggestion: The policy should include a process for sparse allocation (which means using address space efficiently as the network grows). This will allow new operators to grow their network without reserving too many addresses upfront.
> 
> Making the Policy Simple to Avoid Consultant Manipulation
> The goal of SPARK is to give new operators an easy and direct path to ARIN.
> 
> Suggestion: The policy should be as simple as possible and require minimal paperwork. This will make it the easiest and cheapest option, reducing the chance that consultants will push operators toward expensive IPv4 leasing.
> 
> Clear Fee Structure
> Although ARIN sets the fees, we need to make sure the fees are easy to understand.
> 
> Suggestion: The policy should allow ARIN to publish a clear, simple fee structure for the SPARK package. This will make it easier for new operators to understand the costs involved and make better decisions.
> 
> I look forward to working with the Advisory Council to help finalize this policy and make sure SPARK works well for everyone.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Mohibul Mahmud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 9:27 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 22, 2025, at 21:09, Preston Ursini <preston at thefirehorn.com <mailto:preston at thefirehorn.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It comes down to the fact that there is a large incentive for consultants to push IPv4 reliance as the associated brokerage and leasing agreements that pay out commissions. Many of these arrangements even have ongoing payouts for the salespersons.
>> 
>> Why would anyone hire a consultant who is taking kickbacks for operating against their client’s interest?
>> 
>> Seems very unethical to me and not too bright on the part of the clients.
>> 
>> The only money I’ve ever taken from brokers or lease providers has been as a consultant for their purposes unrelated to their clients. Never have I taken money from such an organization as a commission for delivering business to them.
>> 
>>> Many of these consultants don’t even have strong backgrounds and networking and engineering, but in sales and marketing. Combine that with a lack of knowledge on the subject matter for small entrants, and we have what we have now.
>> 
>> Sounds more like an educational problem than a policy problem.
>> 
>>> This is one tiny inch in the direction that will push the community towards the right path on this. I firmly believe educational and information campaigns combined with this policy will steer the market in the right direction.
>> 
>> I think this has very little impact on the problem you claim to be trying to solve. I think pushing for better educational outreach and finding ways to inform these businesses that they should be looking for independent consultants that aren’t taking money from secondary vendors would be far more useful.
>> 
>>> I firmly believe that there are a lot of good consultants out there that do exactly as you were saying, and that this is standard practice among a lot of them.
>> 
>> There are.
>> 
>>> Codifying it and making it easier to self service for these small and new networks will do a lot to get these networks starting on the right path in regards to IPv6 deployment. I think it will be very important to follow up with ARIN staff on how this would be implemented on the front end as well.
>> 
>> I’m not convinced of this. I think you’re trying to solve an educational problem with a policy hammer, because the policy hammer is easy to reach and education is hard.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> 
>>> Preston Louis Ursini
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 22, 2025, at 10:40 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I’m dismayed that consultants would do that, but I guess there are no shortage of bad consultants out there.
>>>> 
>>>> I’ve been doing effectively SPARK for clients for a long time now (since well before IPv4 runout) and never sent a single client into the leasing realm (despite doing consulting for an IPv4 leasing organization).
>>>> 
>>>> I’ll wait for the proposal to be published as a draft policy before commenting further.
>>>> 
>>>> Owen
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 22, 2025, at 20:16, Preston Ursini via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Greetings all:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am seeking community discussion on ARIN-prop-348, the SPARK proposal. SPARK is intended to create a clear and straightforward entry point for new organizations needing core Internet number resources. At present, a new operator must make separate requests for an ASN, IPv4 under section 4.10, and an IPv6 allocation. Each request has its own requirements, paperwork, and fees. This complexity has real-world consequences: many small networks end up turning to consultants who, in practice, often steer them into leasing IPv4 space instead of working directly with ARIN. That approach not only increases costs for these new operators but also delays IPv6 deployment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> SPARK grew out of conversations with and feedback from small network operators in the community. They want to do things “the right way” but face too many barriers when first approaching ARIN. By creating a single, bundled policy path, SPARK would make it far easier for them to start off on solid footing, with an ASN, a /24 of IPv4 from the transition pool, and an IPv6 allocation that is sized for growth.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The benefit of defining SPARK explicitly in the NRPM is that it would give ARIN staff a clear framework for implementation and provide new operators with transparency and predictability. It would remove ambiguity, lower entry costs, and encourage IPv6 adoption from day one. Without a policy like this, the market incentives push new operators toward leasing arrangements that solve their immediate IPv4 needs but do nothing to build long-term IPv6 readiness.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I may have confused the historic ASN issuance fee with the current transfer fee when thinking through the costs, which highlights that ARIN’s fee schedule could be presented more clearly on the website. That is probably best addressed through the Consultation and Suggestion Process. The policy question here, however, is whether we should formally establish SPARK as a new allocation category in the NRPM, how it should be structured, and what costs should be attached.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would greatly appreciate community input on three fronts: where in the NRPM this category should live, what fee model would be appropriate and fair, and whether the proposed language around eligibility and resource sizes needs adjustment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you in advance for your thoughts and feedback.
>>>>> 
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>> Preston Louis Ursini
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ARIN-PPML
>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20251024/27a9e636/attachment-0001.htm>