Re: Updated ARIN allocation information

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

I will attempt to clarify this once more...

When I wrote the policy which created this set-aside space, it was, as Bill has said, intended as a hedge to provide 
minimal resources for organizations that are unable to obtain larger IPv4 blocks through any normal mechanism (standard 
allocation/assignment, transfer, market, etc.) and desperately need some space which they can hopefully get routed to 
support the bare minimum IPv4 connectivity for their IPv6 environment.

I expect that if use of these blocks does become necessary, then routing them will almost certainly be the least of the 
problems we face in that circumstance.

It is my sincere hope that we come to our senses and implement IPv6 sufficiently that these blocks are never needed. 
However, as the saying goes, I am hoping for the best and planning for the worst. The ARIN community overwhelmingly 
supported this idea at the time and that is why we set aside the block in question.

In answer to Tore's statement, this block does not apply the standard justification criteria and I think you would 
actually be quite hard pressed to justify a /24 from this prefix. In most cases, it is expected that these would be the 
IPv4 address pool for the public facing IPv4 side of a NAT64 or 464xlat service. Most organizations probably only need 
one or two addresses and so would receive a /28. It is expected that each of these addresses likely supports several 
thousand customers in a service provider environment.

Owen


> On Jan 31, 2014, at 7:38 PM, Bryan Socha <bryan () serverstack com> wrote:
>
> has it be clarified by arin on why they are going to allocate /28s?   seems
> a faster way to waste ipv4 space with unusable ip addresses?     The only
> thing I can think of is micro allocations for IX points.
>
> *Bryan Socha*
> Network Engineer
> 646.450.0472 | *bryan () serverstack com <bryan () serverstack com>*
>
> *ServerStack* | Scale Big
>
>
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:58 PM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Tore Anderson <tore () fud no> wrote:
> > > What I fail to understand from this thread is the apparent expectation
> > > that these smaller-than-/24 microscopic delegations from ARIN will be
> > > popular.
> >
> > Hi Tore,
> >
> > There is every expectation that they will be unpopular. They're a
> > hedge against the possibility of a grueling last-minute IPv6
> > conversion following a failed IPv4 market. They're something that can,
> > with difficulty, be made to work. They serve no other purpose.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bill Herrin
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > William D. Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com  bill () herrin us
> > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004