"It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

[owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)]

Other AC members and I are in the process of crafting a proposal to address this issue.

Please stay tuned. I hope to have something ready to post to PPML in the next few weeks.

Owen

On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:19 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Lee Howard <lee at asgard.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, "J?r?me Nicolle" <jerome at ceriz.fr> wrote:
>> 
>>> It is necessary to keep an acceptable churn and still allocate small
>>> blocks to newcomers, merely to deploy CGNs.
>>> 
>>> Not doing so would end up in courts for entry barrier enforced by a
>>> monopoly (the RIRs).
>> 
>> 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, 
> small ISPs do not qualify for an initial allocation from ARIN until 
> they have utilized a provider-assigned block of the minimum size
> specified (based on being singly-homed or multi-homed.)  These same 
> criteria now apply to receipt of an address block via transfer, so at 
> regional IPv4 free pool depletion may be _very_ difficult to satisfy. 
> 
> There are a number of ways of addressing this (changing initial ISP 
> allocation policy, changing dependence on allocation policies for 
> transfer approvals, establishing a reserved block for new entrants,
> etc.) but if left unaddressed will leave circumstances such that new 
> entrants are precluded from participating in the transfer market as 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>