[162668] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Mon Apr 29 15:19:16 2013
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=F4me_Nicolle?=
<jerome@ceriz.fr>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:19:00 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CDA43587.1C1A5%Lee@asgard.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> wrote:
> On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, "J=E9r=F4me Nicolle" <jerome@ceriz.fr> wrote:
>=20
>> It is necessary to keep an acceptable churn and still allocate small
>> blocks to newcomers, merely to deploy CGNs.
>>=20
>> Not doing so would end up in courts for entry barrier enforced by a
>> monopoly (the RIRs).
>=20
> There is a /10 reserved to facilitate IPv6 deployment:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10
> "Reclamation" is facilitated by offering a financial benefit, i.e.,
> selling underused addresses.
Note that under the "slow start" IPv4 address allocation policies,=20
small ISPs do not qualify for an initial allocation from ARIN until=20
they have utilized a provider-assigned block of the minimum size
specified (based on being singly-homed or multi-homed.) These same=20
criteria now apply to receipt of an address block via transfer, so at=20
regional IPv4 free pool depletion may be _very_ difficult to satisfy.=20
There are a number of ways of addressing this (changing initial ISP=20
allocation policy, changing dependence on allocation policies for=20
transfer approvals, establishing a reserved block for new entrants,
etc.) but if left unaddressed will leave circumstances such that new=20
entrants are precluded from participating in the transfer market as=20
a recipient. This is the type of outcome that is generally frowned
upon by governments for obvious reasons, and should be very carefully
considered by the community.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
