<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Joe proposed that for the whole /8, and it didn't get much support. How big a block were you thinking?</div><div><br><div>-Scott</div></div><div><br>On Jul 29, 2010, at 10:18 PM, Andrew Dul <<a href="mailto:andrew.dul@quark.net">andrew.dul@quark.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
Has anyone considered that maybe what we should do is just reserve
the block for future use and not try to predict the future too much
at this point and instead comeback after IPv4 exhaustion and then
write an appropriate policy. Yes this does kick the ball down the
field, but it also allows the ability to have space to work with in
the future to use for an appropriate use after IPv4 run-out.<br>
<br>
Andrew <br>
<br>
On 7/26/2010 1:49 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C8736CFE.A81C%25marty@akamai.com" type="cite">
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
<br>
And a minor correction please. I meant proposal 116 v. 109
when I referenced it.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 7/26/10 4:37 PM, "<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="cja@daydream.com"><a href="mailto:cja@daydream.com">cja@daydream.com</a></a>" <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="packetgrrl@gmail.com"><a href="mailto:packetgrrl@gmail.com">packetgrrl@gmail.com</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</span></font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Owen,<br>
<br>
So do you feel that this is bad all around or just the
minimum allocation unit needs to be changed to something
smaller? Others out there? What are your thoughts
regarding a minimum/maximum allocation size for this last
/8? <br>
<br>
----Cathy<br>
<br>
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Owen DeLong <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="owen@delong.com"><a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
</span></font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Marty,<br>
How do you expect anyone but the largest of the
large and extra large<br>
organizations to qualify for a /20 of IPv4 space under
this proposal?<br>
<br>
This is a really interesting way to attempt to
reserve the last /8 for use<br>
only by the largest organizations ARIN serves, but, I
really don't think that<br>
is good policy.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Owen<br>
</font><br>
On Jul 26, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
><br>
> Hello PPML:<br>
><br>
><br>
> Since it seemed to have been very helpful to vet the
global policy idea on<br>
> the list, I thought it might be helpful to use it to
frame my non-support<br>
> for 109. This is, just like the last time, very raw,
but I expect to solicit<br>
> some time during open policy hour to discuss a more
polished version.<br>
><br>
> A few points.<br>
><br>
> - This idea takes us in the direction of actual
transition<br>
> - Define an acceptable use list<br>
> - Seeks to address COSTS<br>
> - Levels the playing field between small and large<br>
> - Reserves an entire /8 for transition, not for
business as usual<br>
> - Counters the high priced "market" that is emerging
by deferring it's need<br>
><br>
> May not get us all the way through, but every month
that we can avoid<br>
> sending people to markets is a month of reduced costs
IMHO. And it is about<br>
> costs at this point. It's a given that it is going to
happen.<br>
><br>
> Too soon for "for" or "against", but most definitely
open to feedback. Don't<br>
> focus on the words, focus on the ideas. Feedback very
much appreciated.<br>
><br>
><br>
> --draft, group working comments removed for ease of
read<br>
><br>
> 1. Transition Pool<br>
><br>
> ARIN will set-aside the final /8 allocated form the
IANA to facilitate<br>
> transition from IPv4 to IPv6. The resulting
"transition pool" will become<br>
> immediately available for allocations under this
policy. This pool will be<br>
> known as the "transition pool".<br>
><br>
> 2. Minimum and Maximum Allocation Unit<br>
><br>
> The minimum allocation unit will be a /20. The
maximum allocation unit will<br>
> be /15.<br>
><br>
> 2. Allocation Method<br>
><br>
> ARIN will determine and utilize the best method
possible for allocations<br>
> with the goal of maximizing what can be allocated
balanced by minimum<br>
> deaggregation.<br>
><br>
> 3. Eligibility<br>
><br>
> An applicant will become eligible to receive IPv4
addresses from this pool<br>
> when they meet the following requirements:<br>
><br>
> 1. Applicant will provide a written plan detailing
how the addresses will be<br>
> used and on what devices.<br>
><br>
> 2. Previous allocations or assignments under this
policy must continue to<br>
> meet the justification requirements of this policy.<br>
><br>
> 3. Must have applied for, been approved, received and
be utilizing an ARIN<br>
> allocated IPv6 allocation or assignment.<br>
><br>
> 4. All allocations or assignments made under this
policy must be efficiently<br>
> utilized to a rate of 80%.<br>
><br>
> 5. Applicant must demonstrate that no other
allocations or assignments that<br>
> they have received will meet their requirements.<br>
><br>
> 6. Applicants must provide documentation that
demonstrates that the<br>
> addresses received under this policy will be used
only on dual stack devices<br>
> that will have both an IPv4 and IPv6 address that
will both be reachable<br>
> natively.<br>
><br>
> 7. Be in compliance with Section 4, Acceptable Use of
Addresses.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 4. Acceptable Use of Addresses<br>
><br>
> 1. A single IPv4 /32 for providers to assign to 6 to
4 NAT gateways for each<br>
> each layer 3 contagious v6 only customer networks
thereby enabling IPv4<br>
> connectivity for an IPv6-only customer networks.
Customers must not have<br>
> available IPv4 addresses.<br>
><br>
> 2. A single IPv4 /32 for providers to assign to 4 to
4 NAT gateways for each<br>
> each layer 3 contagious v6 customer networks to
deploy IPv4 RFC-1918 in<br>
> addition to (and NOT instead of) IPv6 thereby
enabling IPv4 connectivity for<br>
> an IPv6-only customer networks.. Customers must not
have available IPv4<br>
> addresses.<br>
><br>
> 3. Customer networks qualifying under 4.1 or 4.2
(above) may qualify for<br>
> additional IPv4 address to meet multi-homing traffic
engineering needs or to<br>
> address stand-alone NAT devices as specified below:<br>
><br>
> A. A single IPv4 /32 for each interconnect for each
mult-homed layer 3<br>
> contiguous customer network that requires traffic
engineering. For example a<br>
> network with two interconnects to a single upstream
provider can get one<br>
> IPv4 /32 for each of their two interconnects, and
distribute their internal<br>
> hosts between the two outside NAT addresses for
traffic engineering.<br>
><br>
> B. Customer networks that require stand-alone NAT
devices (not integrated<br>
> into their CPE router) qualify for enough IPv4
addresses to number the<br>
> loopback addresses (if needed) for all edge routers
that have one or more<br>
> connections to a transit provider, enough IPv4
addresses to number each of<br>
> the point-to-point links between those routers and
their transit provider,<br>
> as well as the point to point links between those
routers and directly<br>
> connected NAT appliances. As well as one IPv4 address
for each of these<br>
> directly connected NAT appliances.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 4. Loopback addresses for edge routers that have one
or more connections to<br>
> transit providers and/or peers<br>
><br>
> 5. Address for point to point links between edge
routers and their transit<br>
> providers [why does it need to be unique v. 1918?]
[that is an interesting<br>
> point... We use globally unique as a matter of not
breaking routing by<br>
> accident. I have to think about if it would be
generally acceptable to use<br>
> RFC-1918. Interesting question!]<br>
><br>
> 7. A /32 for routers in a greenfield network that are
dual stacked.<br>
> [redundant to 3/5?] [this is not redundant... In this
case I need an IPv4<br>
> routerID to make BGP work. If I want to be a
green-filed IPv6 transit<br>
> provider I need one IPv4 address for each router]<br>
><br>
> 8. /32 for public facing name servers, NTP servers,
SMTP servers and Web<br>
> servers which are dual stacked and reachable on IPv4
and IPv6 networks.<br>
><br>
> 9. Dual stacked VPN aggregation ex. v6 -> v4 one
IPv4 /32 per VPN aggregator<br>
><br>
><br>
> 5. Reservation Forecasting<br>
><br>
> An applicant may provide ARIN with a thirty-month
forecast of IPv4 address<br>
> need. ARIN will reserve the requested size in
compliance with Section 2 and<br>
> 3. When a reservation forecast is approved by ARIN,
the applicant will then<br>
> be authorized to draw down from the forecast
quarterly. Prior to requesting<br>
> reserved addresses, applicant will provide
documentation to ARIN that they<br>
> have maintained utilization requirements for previous
allocation. If<br>
> applicant fails to meet utilization requirements for
two consecutive<br>
> quarters, ARIN will cancel the reservation and return
unused addresses to<br>
> the pool.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Example:<br>
><br>
> Applicant applies to ARIN under this policy and
submits a thirty-month<br>
> forecast requesting a /16. Using criteria established
in the NRPM and this<br>
> policy, ARIN will determine if applicant is eligible
and has need. If the<br>
> applicant meets the requirements for the allocation,
they will reserve a<br>
> /16. The applicant will then be allocated 3/30th of
the forecasted<br>
> requirement in a CIDR block or equivalent number of
IPv4 addresses. ARIN<br>
> will round down allocations or assignments to the
closest CIDR single block.<br>
> Rounding errors will be applied to the last
allocation of the last quarter<br>
> of the thirty month period and allocated then.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 6. Dual Stack Requirement<br>
><br>
> Addresses from this pool may only be used on dual
stack devices that are to<br>
> be reachable via both IPv4 and IPv6 networks.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 7. Application Frequency<br>
><br>
> Applicants may apply for address space from the
transition pool once per<br>
> quarter. If an applicant has an existing thirty-month
forecast that has been<br>
> approved by ARIN, they are ineligible to apply for
more address space until<br>
> their reservation has been exhausted. If an applicant
has had a reservation<br>
> cancelled due to policy compliance issues including
utilization, they are<br>
> not eligble to apply for addresses.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 8. Post Exhaustion Refresh<br>
>> From the point of the issuance of the final /8
from the IANA, ARIN will<br>
> dispose of all address space that it may receive
using this policy.<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are
subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="ARIN-PPML@arin.net"><a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a></a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription
at:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"><a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a></a><br>
> Please contact <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="info@arin.net"><a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a></a> if you experience
any issues.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed
to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="ARIN-PPML@arin.net"><a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a></a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"><a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a></a><br>
Please contact <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="info@arin.net"><a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a></a> if you experience
any issues.<br>
</span></font></blockquote>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
<br>
</span></font></blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net"><a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a></a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"><a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a></a>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net"><a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a></a> if you experience any issues.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>PPML</span><br><span>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to</span><br><span>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).</span><br><span>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:</span><br><span><a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a></span><br><span>Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.</span></div></blockquote></body></html>