[ppml] Statements of support for the proposals
William Herrin
arin-contact at dirtside.com
Mon Oct 15 11:17:57 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] PPML Digest, Vol 28, Issue 28
- Next message: [ppml] Statements of support for the proposals
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi folks, I thought it might be helpful to compile statements of support or opposition for each of the pending policy proposals in a single message along with a brief reason why/why not. I encourage others to do the same. 2006-7 Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria I have no strong feelings one way or another on this proposal. It seems reasonable to me to starting thinking about what initial allocations look like in a post-IPv4 world. Having accepted a policy which enables that process, we'd be in a position to start gaining operational experience. Maybe we'd learn how we need to adjust the policy before major demand hits. 2007-13: Removal of ISP Immediate Need from End-User I SUPPORT proposal 2007-13. I'd support a proposal to remove 4.2.1.6 too, but maybe I like planning too much. 2007-14: Resource Review Process I SUPPORT proposal 2007-14. Counsel has the right of it. 2007-15: Authentication of Legacy Resources I OPPOSE proposal 2007-15. I support efforts like the recently offered "Legacy RSA" and outreach in general but the time for penalizing Legacy folks who don't join up has not yet arrived, may never arrive and certainly won't arrive in the next 80 days. 2007-16: IPv4 Soft Landing I SUPPORT proposal 2007-16. Staff has suggested some reasonable adjustments, but the proposal is otherwise a darn good idea. Folks still gobbling IPv4 address space at this late date SHOULD demonstrate that they're getting themselves and their customers ready for the day when there are no more IPv4 addresses. Even if this does mean more work for ARIN staff. 2007-17: Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation I neither support nor oppose this proposal. Your heart's in the right place Owen, but I'm not convinced this is the best way to go about it. 2007-18: Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space I OPPOSE proposal 2007-18. Grabbing the last 25 /8's like this is too much and the division between the RIRs is unfair. The general idea is good but I'd prefer to see 2007-23 enacted. 2007-19: IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs I neither support nor oppose this proposal. I frankly don't understand what problem its attempting to solve. Is there something about the way we currently assign ASNs that's troublesome? 2007-21: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use I STRONGLY SUPPORT proposal 2007-21. The IPv6 deployment process is in enough trouble as it is without disenfranchising (and thus pissing off) small orgs who are already multihomed with IPv4. Because of the significant cost of running dual stack everywhere we may only get one chance to deploy a protocol like IPv6. If we shoot ourselves in the foot the price could be IPv4 forever, or at least until something replaces BGP at a couple orders of magnitude lower cost. 2007-22: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests I OPPOSE proposal 2007-22. With 3 years before the free pool runs dry, now is not the time to extend the forward window for allocations. 2007-23: End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs I SUPPORT proposal 2007-23. Although it potentially denies us one last /8 in favor of Afrinic, it buys us a longer window of time at the end to enact whatever final conservation policies we choose to. We have time left to bicker about what ARIN's policy should then be, but there is a limited amount of time left in which we'll be able to get global consensus on policy which enables that activity. 2007-24: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines I neither support nor oppose this proposal. In general, I have difficulty seeing the need. RIPE with their /19's will burn us out of IPv6 addresses long before ARIN's review process causes any meaningful difficulty. 2007-25: IPv6 Policy Housekeeping I SUPPORT proposal 2007-25. Its intended to be an inoffensive cleanup of the NRPM and it achieves its goal. 2007-26 came in after the deadline for this meeting, did it not? In general I support it. 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
- Previous message: [ppml] PPML Digest, Vol 28, Issue 28
- Next message: [ppml] Statements of support for the proposals
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list