[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

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.


John Curran
President and CEO