[arin-ppml] ARIN 58 Table Topic - If the Waitlist didn’t exist, what would?

Wed Oct 28 13:02:51 EDT 2026

Greetings all,

I'd like to second what Mike has added to the discussion, as well as add 
a few points of my own.

ARIN operates as somewhat of a quasi-governmental quasi-regulatory 
agency, and as a result (and I would argue quite importantly) its policy 
development principles require that ARIN policy act equitably with 
respect to all participants.

Dismantling the waitlist and auctioning off addresses would do the exact 
opposite of this, and would in my view only worsen the cost issue by 
forcing all new operators into the private market, even if the influx of 
inventory would lower prices. In my opinion, internet addresses are a 
community resource that should not /require/ a purchase of often tens of 
thousands of dollars to acquire, even if that is an /option/. 
Participation in the internet should not require such a massive capital 
investment to an unrelated third-party that does not otherwise directly 
provide you as a network any services, as opposed to, for example, 
transit providers.

Secondly, I think the argument that ARIN should stop caring about IPv4 
because we should all be adopting IPv6 anyway is disingenuous and 
harmful. Although I agree that in an ideal world we could leave IPv4 
behind and focus only on IPv6, we do not live in an ideal world. *IPv4 
is still a necessity* for many modern networks. I believe that dropping 
regulation around IPv4 would only worsen one of the many issues we 
currently face with IPv6 adoption, which is that for many networks they 
can simply buy their way out of the problem by acquiring IPv4 on the 
private market. Making this the only way to acquire addresses by 
removing the waitlist would only worsen this.

Continuing to make this argument ("why should ARIN care about IPv4"?) in 
response to any proposed changes to current IPv4 policy is in my view 
actively harmful to the policy development process and to those who 
/are/ making good-faith efforts to improve our existing, and certainly 
in some cases flawed, policy in this area. Just because a better 
alternative exists does not mean we should completely abandon those who 
are forced to use the inferior system for reasons outside of ARIN's 
control.

Eric, I agree that often monetary incentives (or disincentives) are the 
best way to motivate businesses to make decisions, but I think (for the 
reasons I will outline below) /these disincentives are primarily 
targeting the wrong group of operators./

"Small operators", like the ones that are the primary users of the 
waitlist, 4.10, etc and would be directly harmed by changes like this, 
are NOT the primary ones holding up IPv6 deployment. In fact, in my 
experience and according to statistics presented at previous meetings, 
small operators are often the first to deploy newer technologies like 
IPv6, RPKI, or ASPA; and it is usually the large, multinational business 
operators or consumer ISPs that take the longest to upgrade their 
systems because they are simply not affected by the issues we are aiming 
to fix due to their age and size; they ARE able to just buy their way 
out of this problem in a way that smaller operators like myself cannot.

Most people I know that are trying to get IPv4 are doing so 
*BECAUSE* they must interoperate with these larger operators that will 
not upgrade their systems. I think we should focus our policy efforts on 
*them*, where policy changes can have the most effect, rather than on 
the small operators which the waitlist, 4.10, and similar primarily 
serve, as enforced by the size limits in all of these sections of the NRPM.

I hope not to come across too strong. We all want the best here, but I 
see a lot of the same things over and over that don't reflect the 
reality of the system we must work within.

Best regards,
-Tyler
Wavelet

On 10/28/26 12:25 PM, Mike Burns via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Speaking as one who proposed sending all recovered addresses only to a reserved pool to end the waiting list (ARIN-2019-17), and also who proposed a rule of one /24 to every newcomer, once(ARIN-2023-8), I too am concerned with the amount of time spent on this rump policy.
>
> I am opposed to it because generally, introducing into a priced market a resource that is free will tend to distort the  market and invite corruption.
>
> However, you asked why ARIN should not auction the addresses. To me, that gets down to ARIN’s institutional role. ARIN administers the rules of this market: it determines eligibility, recognizes transfers, maintains the authoritative registry, and controls how recovered space is returned to circulation. If ARIN begins auctioning that space for its own revenue, it becomes a market participant in a market it also administers. That is an inherent conflict of roles that invites lawsuits.
>
> I was not at that table discussion, but if I was I would ask why there is no information regarding recovered addresses as they move through quarantine, or whatever process ARIN takes to make the addresses ready to allocate.  Waiting-list members must already endure an opaque process, ARIN could provide them with valuable information but chooses not to do so.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARIN-PPML<arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Eric C. Landgraf
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2026 11:27 AM
> To:arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN 58 Table Topic - If the Waitlist didn’t exist, what would?
>
> The somewhat obscured reason for discussions about getting rid of the waiting list: a substantial portion of what we hear each meeting in the policy experience report are the problems ARIN faces with administering current IPv4 policy. 4.10 is subject to abuse, 4.4 is underutilized, and the incentives around 4.1.8 waitlist space are somewhat misdirected.
> So how do we get ARIN out of the business of passing around smaller and smaller blocks of IPv4, when IPv6 has been the current version of the internet protocol for years?
>
> If IPv4 is a cost center for us as an RIR, but also has relatively high value on the open market, why *shouldn't* we dispose of it in a way that increases that value while providing revenue? 4.10 space is there for small operators that actually need IPv4 space for operations, provided they are also working to deploy IPv6: if you aren't transitioning to
> IPv6 as a small operator, you ought to feel the cost of that decision.
> Getting rid of "free" addresses from the waitlist is the easiest knob we can turn *in policy* to force people to do that math.
>
> If we were to dispose of 4.4 and/or 4.10 space, I would agree with you that the waitlist should only be for newcomers. But as things stand, those newcomers have many ways to get IPv4, so long as they jump thru some hoops.
>
> 	Regards,
> 	Eric C. Landgraf
> 	Virginia Tech
>
> On Oct 27 11:14, Fernando Frediani wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> ARIN auctioning off IPv4 is something unthinkable for a RIR. I don't
>> even understand how people come up with these ideas. RIRs are not
>> brokers and are never meant to be anything like that.
>>
>> I believe the whole issue around waiting list is that people ... have
>> to wait. And they don't want to. Some believe that if putting money on
>> the table they can get a fastpass in front of others and get what they need.
>> But Numbering Resources managed by a RIR are a shared resource and was
>> never meant to be treated as a private asset, but to serve the
>> internet community from that region and as such should be assigned to
>> those who need and have justification to receive them, regardless of their economical power.
>>
>> Waitling list is a natural and the fairest thing to do with recovered
>> addresses, even though it can be a long wait, at least they go to
>> those who have the most right both because they can justify the need
>> under the current policy and also because they have been patiently
>> waiting in the list. What else one would expect to be ?
>> I find hard to believe that people expect the waiting list resources
>> to be the salvation to their internet business (those who have some
>> resources already).
>>
>> I am personally of the opinion that waiting list should assign space
>> only to newcomers, therefore those who have nothing to begin with as
>> in other RIRs like LACNIC. Those who have something have means for
>> revenue to acquire a block later when necessary.
>> But until that change just leave the waiting list as it is to keep the
>> most fair way to allocate that IP space.
>>
>> Regards
>> Fernando
>>
>> On 10/27/2026 10:09 AM, Jones, Brian wrote:
>>> At ARIN 58 the NRPM Working Group introduced this table topic and garnered a bit of discussion about the community’s thoughts concerning the Waitlist. Posting here for broader exposure and to solicit more community feedback.
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________________
>>> _____________ Table Topic - If the Waitlist didn’t exist, what
>>> would?
>>>
>>> Discussions about how ARIN would handle the return of IP address space became a central topic.
>>>
>>> There was much discussion around auctioning off IPv4 addresses after that topic was brought up. It was pointed out that there are legal and ethical issues to consider for what ARIN would do with and resources from this. There was discussion about how the money would be used if such a decision was made to auction off IPv4 address space.
>>>
>>> It was expressed that no new policy would have to replace the Waitlist, that by default ARIN would continue allocate IPv4 address space out of section 4.4 and 4.10 of the NRPM and that IPv4 resources would be replenished with any returned or reclaimed resources to the reserved pools as is indicated by the NRPM.
>>>
>>> There were also discussions about combining sections 4.4 and 4.10 of the NRPM and removing the Waitlist while also relaxing the requirement for acquiring these resources concerning transitioning to IPv6. Relaxing the requirement from you must have an IPv6 transition plan to acquire any resources from this space to something like “with preference given for those transitions to IPv6”. The hard requirement for transitioning to IPv6 was brought up as an impediment for those who may not have the money for purchasing newer network equipment to support IPv6 and at least in some Caribbean regions it may take the local government involvement before network operators can even consider moving toward IPv6. This was expressed at a previous table topic discussion at ARIN 56 I believe.
>>>
>>> At least one participant asked if it was possible for ARIN to provide a report on where waitlist allocations go after they are fulfilled. Specifically, do they go to small ISPs, wind up in the market for leasing, or elsewhere?
>>>
>>> It was also mentioned that if an entity has a viable business plan that requires IPv4 then they should have included the cost for purchasing or leasing those resources because the Waitlist has no guarantees for available IPv4 resources, so does there remain any reason to maintain a Waitlist becomes the question.
>>> ____________________________________________________________________
>>> _____________
>>>
>>> _
>>> Brian Jones
>>> ARIN Advisory Council
>>> NRPM WG Chair
> _______________________________________________
> 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 contactinfo 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
> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20261028/a4b2977d/attachment-0001.htm>