Updated ARIN allocation information

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sat Feb 1 01:14:37 UTC 2014


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 at 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 at serverstack.com <bryan at serverstack.com>*
> 
> *ServerStack* | Scale Big
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:58 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Tore Anderson <tore at 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 at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>> 
>> 



More information about the NANOG mailing list