<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Greetings all,<br>
<br>
I'd like to second what Mike has added to the discussion, as well
as add a few points of my own.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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 <i>require</i> a
purchase of often tens of thousands of dollars to acquire, even if
that is an <i>option</i>. 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.<br>
<br>
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. <b>IPv4 is still a necessity</b> 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.<br>
<br>
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 <i>are</i> 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. <br>
<br>
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) <i>these
disincentives are primarily targeting the wrong group of
operators.</i><br>
<br>
"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. <br>
<br>
Most people I know that are trying to get IPv4 are doing so <b>BECAUSE</b> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
-Tyler<br>
Wavelet<br>
<br>
On 10/28/26 12:25 PM, Mike Burns via ARIN-PPML wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00aa01dd66f8$fe9a23a0$fbce6ae0$@sum.net">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net"><arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net></a> On Behalf Of Eric C. Landgraf
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2026 11:27 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>
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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">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
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
ARIN-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">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-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">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>