<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hello Mike</p>
<p>What about new entrants ? I firmly see that new entrants and the
most important to be looked at as having a minimal allocation from
the RIR is the bare minimal condition for them to exist in the
Internet in first place and do minimal business, therefore any
recovered addresses should be prioritized to be given to these new
entrants. After that in terms of importance comes the 4.10 and 4.4
sections that are equally important as they apply to Autonomous
Systems that already exist in the Internet. As mentioned 4.10
doesn't necessarily apply to all types of ISP or End-users.<br>
If new entrants are not privileged with any space that ARIN has to
distribute they become an ASN, receive a IPv6 and must go to
market to get *any* IPv4 space which would be not only unfair with
them but also but a quiet big block for them to exist as business.</p>
<p>Therefore I can only support this draft if it's changed to
reflect this scenario.</p>
<p>Best regards<br>
Fernando Frediani<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/07/2019 18:32, Mike Burns wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00df01d54655$228eb540$67ac1fc0$@iptrading.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.emailquote, li.emailquote, div.emailquote
{mso-style-name:emailquote;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:1.0pt;
border:none;
padding:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.xmsonormal, li.xmsonormal, div.xmsonormal
{mso-style-name:x_msonormal;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Mike,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My purpose in authoring this proposal was
to starve the Waiting list to death by preventing further
unpredictable influxes of addresses.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would support allocating returned
addresses to both 4.10 and 4.4 pools, or whichever might need
them most.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I know the 4.10 pool is largely untapped,
but I’m not sure about the 4.4 pool, so maybe it would be
better to place returned space there.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<br>
Mike<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> ARIN-PPML
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net"><arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net></a> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Mike
Arbrouet<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 29, 2019 5:03 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Fernando Frediani <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com"><fhfrediani@gmail.com></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17:
Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div id="x_divtagdefaultwrapper">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Having read
the Problem Statement and understood what is being
proposed, I'd kindly advise that this policy should
also consider allocating the returned addresses not
only to the ARIN 4.10 reserved pool - but also the
ARIN 4.4 micro-allocation pool for critical
infrastructure providers of the Internet ,
specifically public exchange points. Both would help
on the improvement of the end-user experience given
the actual depletion of IPv4<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="x_Signature">
<div id="x_divtagdefaultwrapper">
<div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Mike
Arbrouet, CISSP- CISM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr width="98%" size="3" align="center"></div>
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From:</span></b><span
style="color:black"> ARIN-PPML <<a
href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a>>
on behalf of Fernando Frediani <<a
href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 29, 2019 10:39:32 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy
ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved
Pool</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">I find it
interesting the idea of privileging the pool dedicated to
<br>
facilitate IPv6 Deployment and I also agree with the
comments below in <br>
the sense that it's not very beneficial do most ARIN
members due to max <br>
size, /22, cannot be holding more than a /20.<br>
<br>
However one point I couldn't identify is where the new
entrants stand in <br>
this new possible scenario ? Will they only be able to
apply under the <br>
4.10 reserved pool ? If so for a access/broadband ISPs may
be easier to <br>
fit, but not necessarily for other scenarios and types of
ISPs. <br>
Therefore if I didn't miss anything these returned
addresses should also <br>
be able to go to new entrants, not only to 4.10 reserved
pool conditions.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Fernando Frediani<br>
<br>
On 25/07/2019 17:32, Tom Fantacone wrote:<br>
> I found the wording of the Problem Statement on this
one a bit <br>
> confusing. However, after deciphering the effect of
the actual policy <br>
> change I support it.<br>
><br>
> Essentially, all returned IPv4 space will no longer
go to the waiting <br>
> list but will supplement the 4.10 reserved pool used
to enhance IPv6 <br>
> deployment. This essentially kills off the waiting
list.<br>
><br>
> The recent restrictions placed on the waiting list to
reduce fraud <br>
> have hobbled it to the point where it's not very
beneficial to most <br>
> ARIN members. (Max size, /22, cannot be holding more
than a /20). <br>
> It's essentially only useful to new entrants, but
those that go on it <br>
> still have to wait many months to receive their small
allocation. If <br>
> they justify need now, but have to wait that long,
how critical is <br>
> their need if they're willing to wait that long?
Small blocks are not <br>
> terribly expensive and can be quickly gotten on the
transfer market. <br>
> I can understand waiting that long for a large block
needed for a <br>
> longer term project due to prohibitive cost, but I
don't see a great <br>
> benefit to the waiting list as it stands.<br>
><br>
> Also, if there's any fraud left on the waiting list,
this would kill it.<br>
><br>
> I would hope, however, that if implemented, those
currently on the <br>
> waiting list would be grandfathered in. I do think
some entities with <br>
> legitimate need got burned on the last change made to
the waiting list.<br>
><br>
> At 04:05 PM 7/23/2019, ARIN wrote:<br>
>> On 18 July 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC)
accepted <br>
>> "ARIN-prop-276: Returned Addresses to the 4.10
Reserved Pool" as a <br>
>> Draft Policy.<br>
>><br>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17 is below and can be
found at:<br>
>><br>
>> <a
href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_17/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_17/</a><br>
>><br>
>> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies
on PPML. The AC will <br>
>> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the
conformance of this <br>
>> draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet
number resource <br>
>> policy as stated in the Policy Development
Process (PDP). <br>
>> Specifically, these principles are:<br>
>><br>
>> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource
Administration<br>
>> * Technically Sound<br>
>> * Supported by the Community<br>
>><br>
>> The PDP can be found at:<br>
>> <a
href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/</a><br>
>><br>
>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can
be found at:<br>
>> <a
href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/</a><br>
>><br>
>> Regards,<br>
>><br>
>> Sean Hopkins<br>
>> Policy Analyst<br>
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)<br>
>><br>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to
the 4.10 Reserved Pool<br>
>><br>
>> Problem Statement:<br>
>><br>
>> An inconsistent and unpredictable stream of
address space is an <br>
>> unsuitable method of populating the waiting list
(4.1.8.1) and <br>
>> fulfilling subsequent requests.<br>
>><br>
>> Policy statement:<br>
>><br>
>> Change "4.10. Dedicated IPv4 Block to Facilitate
IPv6 Deployment" to <br>
>> "4.10 Dedicated IPv4 Pool to Facilitate IPv6
Deployment"<br>
>><br>
>> Change" When ARIN receives its last /8 IPv4
allocation from IANA, a <br>
>> contiguous /10 IPv4 block will be set aside and
dedicated to <br>
>> facilitate IPv6 deployment. Allocations and
assignments from this <br>
>> block " to "In addition to the contiguous /10
IPv4 block set aside <br>
>> and dedicated to facilitate IPv6 deployment, all
returns and <br>
>> revocations of IPv4 blocks will be added to the
pool of space <br>
>> dedicated to the facilitation of IPv6 deployment.
Allocations and <br>
>> assignments from this pool "<br>
>><br>
>> Change "This block will be subject to a minimum
size allocation of <br>
>> /28 and a maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN
should use sparse <br>
>> allocation when possible within that /10 block."
to "This pool will <br>
>> be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28
and a maximum sized <br>
>> allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse
allocation when possible <br>
>> within the pool."<br>
>><br>
>> Comments:<br>
>><br>
>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> ARIN-PPML<br>
>> You are receiving this message because you are
subscribed to<br>
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a
href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" moz-do-not-send="true">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list
subscription at:<br>
>> <a
href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
>> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">info@arin.net</a> if you
experience any issues.<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> ARIN-PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are
subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a
href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" moz-do-not-send="true">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription
at:<br>
> <a
href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">info@arin.net</a> if you
experience any issues.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed
to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a
href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" moz-do-not-send="true">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a
href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">info@arin.net</a> if you
experience any issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>