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

Fri Oct 24 02:16:24 EDT 2025

Preston

I just got another /28 for another American client of mine, yet again. I
think, like the others said, getting IPv6 from ARIN isn't difficult.
Probably best to withdraw this.

*--*
Best Regards
Daryll Swer
Website: daryllswer.com
<https://l.mailtrack.com/l/aed0e57263aa9273972deb5be0be0e8c4b1f7c14?u=2153471>

On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 at 11:03, Preston Ursini via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:

> 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.
>
>    1.
>
>    *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.
>    2.
>
>    *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.
>    3.
>
>    *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.
>    4.
>
>    *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> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2025, at 21:09, Preston Ursini <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> 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> 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).
>>
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> <https://l.mailtrack.com/l/c9a57f781953c33316293aad3bf3a4934795a3cf?u=2153471>
>>
>> Please contact 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).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> <https://l.mailtrack.com/l/db9c6e94c826d2cd66bc6d6bd14c16bf1d85dce4?u=2153471>
>> Please contact 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).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> <https://l.mailtrack.com/l/4b8018b43b547eedcefdf85a208d69276880fbbb?u=2153471>
> Please contact 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/20251024/6c5d1af7/attachment-0001.htm>