As I have repeatedly stated. I am opposed to bifurcating the qualifications for space from ARIN vs. space from transfers.
Making transfers more liberal that direct allocations/assignments is already proving harmful and I don’t believe it is good policy to expand that dichotomy. Owen On Nov 25, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> wrote: > Owen, > > I agree with you that we need to avoid the deadly embrace: that is the main > reason for proposing this, so we're in full agreement there. > > I'm not sure that it would be a good idea, though, to let any organization, > not matter how small, get an IPv4 /24 from ARIN's free pool without any real > restrictions. I am much more comfortable allowing an organization to get > such a /24 via transfer, where they have to have at least enough need for the > space to justify spending the money for it. > > In any event, I wonder if we should first focus on the less controversial > fix, and make sure that anyone who can justify the need for a /24 or larger > can get it somehow or other, and separately look into the possibility of > portable space for organizations needing less than a /24. > > -Scott > > > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > Frankly, I don’t think blocking off existing players from getting space they > need in order to save space for possible future entrants is good policy. > > I do think we need to make sure that we avoid deadly embrace in the transfer > market where new players can’t even get a transfer simply because they can’t > get upstream space or meet some other prior-space requirement before being > able to seek out space in the transfer market. > > However, I also think it is bad policy to make those policies any more > liberal for transfers than they are for what is left of the ARIN free pool. > > Hence, I support something like what Scott has posted, but I believe it is > necessary to remove the “transfer only” clause from it. > > Owen > > On Nov 24, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Bill Darte <[email protected]> wrote: > >> New entrants cannot hope to compete in a long term strategy with only >> limited amounts of v4. So they will have to go to the transfer market if >> they need more. Isn't the transfer market about enabling people who 'really >> want or need' v4 that opportunity. But, I agree that having some v4 for >> start ups is probably still a requirement for now, so I would consider a >> single small block.....still, if v6 deployment is delayed longer than we >> hope, then the v4 for new entrants may still run out. What do we do for >> those folks..... We cannot continue to move the deck chairs to forestall >> the move to v6 forever.... >> >> bd >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 4:58 PM, CJ Aronson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Yes, but it limits that use to strictly transitional technology deployment, >> not general IPv4 utilization. >> >> >> I think this is something we should be discussing. Right now the only post >> run out policy ARIN has is for the last /10. You can get a block (very >> small) out of this for transition technologies only. There is no provision >> for new entrants except the transfer market in the ARIN region. >> >> So some of us, and Scott started the discussion going, want to clean up the >> policy manual so that it makes sense for ARIN post run out. We could also >> make a policy like in the other regions that gives a specific size block to >> everyone (or maybe just new entrants?) out of some of the last space. If we >> are going to add the second option then time is really short. >> >> we made the final /10 policy a very long time ago and maybe not everyone >> realizes it is just for transition? Do people still think this makes sense? >> >> Thanks! >> ----Cathy >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
