On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Lee Howard <lee () asgard org> wrote:
On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, "Jérôme Nicolle" <jerome () 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:
"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.
President and CEO