Status: NRPM 4.4
Formal introduction on PPML on 5 September 2012
Origin - ARIN-prop-177
Draft Policy - 5 September 2012 (with staff assessment)
Remains on AC's docket - 31 October 2012
Revised - 21 November 2012
Revised staff assessment - 10 December 2012
Last call - 27 December 2012 through 15 January 2013
New Policy Development Process - 14 January 2013
AC recommended adoption - 31 January 2013
Implemented - 20 March 2013Public Policy Mailing List
ARIN Public Policy Meeting:
ARIN Advisory Council:
Bill Sandiford and Owen DeLong
ARIN Board of Trustees:15 February 2013
Implementation:20 March 2013
Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6
Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size
Date: 27 December 2012
4.4. Micro-allocation ARIN will make IPv4 micro-allocations to critical infrastructure providers of the Internet, including public exchange points, core DNS service providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root and ccTLD operators) as well as the RIRs and IANA. These allocations will be no smaller than a /24. Multiple allocations may be granted in certain situations.
Exchange point allocations MUST be allocated from specific blocks reserved only for this purpose. All other micro-allocations WILL be allocated out of other blocks reserved for micro-allocation purposes. ARIN will make a list of these blocks publicly available.
Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants (minimum of two total), ASN, and contact information. ISPs and other organizations receiving these micro-allocations will be charged under the ISP fee schedule, while end-users will be charged under the fee schedule for end-users. This policy does not preclude exchange point operators from requesting address space under other policies.
ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner consistent with community expectations.
ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an IPv4 /23 block for each authorized new gTLD, allocated from the free pool or received via transfer, but not from the above reservation. This limit of a /23 equivalent per gTLD does not apply to gTLD allocations made under previous policy.
Additional ICANN-sanctioned DNS infrastructure is being added to the Internet and in quantities greater than anticipated when the micro allocation proposal was written and adopted.
The original CI pool was created to serve new IXP and new CI requirements. The pending need is estimated to be over 1000 new gTLD range, which may exhaust the current /16 reservation before the ARIN free pool is exhausted. Once the current /16 reservation is exhausted, CI providers would no longer be eligible to receive address space, either via the general free pool or via transfer.
The original proposal dealt with this by expanding the reservation to a /15 and allowing CI to draw from the free pool instead of the reservation until it gets down to a /8. The consensus coming out of the Dallas meeting seems to be that this is an inadequate solution. As the new expanded gTLD demand will obliterate any reasonable reservation, leaving no resources for the other IXP and CI demands that the original reservation was intended to serve. It is therefore, not possible to services them both out of a common reservation.
In order to ensure continued access to IPv4 number resources by new IXP and DNS operators alike, the AC is modifying the proposal going into last call to allow gTLD operators to continue to qualify for micro allocations from the general free pool or via transfer only, and leaving one /16 reserved for IXP, root, and ccTLD DNS operators.
As a result of the close examination of the CI policy brought about by this proposal, the AC has identified a number of issues in the original policy text that should be addressed. However, the AC is intentionally minimizing the overall changes to this proposal as much as possible for last call in keeping with the spirit of the PDP. The AC intends to make future proposals to deal with these other concerns. The current proposal addresses issues of some urgency and we did not want to delay it to another policy cycle as a result.