[arin-ppml] questions about AC decision re: 103.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:27 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> I will reiterate, I believe the biggest issue was the lack of a "needs
I'd love to see a definition of needs-basis which doesn't have the
effect of making ARIN the gatekeeper for Internet routing policy. If
such a definition can be developed, I would be pleased to integrate it
into a proposal like 103. I won't hold my breath and I respectfully
don't believe the AC should expect the rest of the world to hold its
Does the AC believe that abandoning needs-basis or moving ARIN out of
the business of setting Internet routing policy are not proper topics
for formal discussion and presentation at the meeting? Please explain.
> I don't believe the classful nature was that much of an issue, at least for
> me personally. The current IPv6 policy is rather classful already, at least
> from my point of view, /32s and /48s seem a lot like Class As and Bs to me.
> But, I must say I wasn't comfortable with /24s being handed out as loosely
> as was being proposed. It just doesn't seem right, my best example is how
> some people feel today about some of the original Class A or /8 allocations,
> to major corporations.
If this was the only show stopper, I'd be happy to insert some sort of
LAN-count language which applies only to /24's and resubmit. I don't
imagine any harm in applying a needs-basis to this largest of
allocations. Please advise.
> Independent of those options and more broadly where do I think we go from
> here? Shorter-term (for the Toronto PPM) I believe we need proposals to;
> 1. Rewrite 18.104.22.168; to better specify qualifications to be an ISP or LIR and
> get a /32. A lot of people don't like the 200 end-site definition that is
> there today. This discussion started back in Dearborn and PP#101 is one
> option for this.
> 2. Rewrite 22.214.171.124; Currently end-user policy for IPv6 depends on IPv4
> 3. Either as part of #2 or separately, I want to propose a separate IPv6
> pool for assignments that are not intended to be part of the hierarchically
> routed global Internet.
Respectfully, these notions are stale. We've repeatedly examined them
and gotten nowhere fast. Move past this logjam to something fresh.
> But, also the minutes for the AC meetings do get posted at the
> following link, usually a few weeks after the meeting. But given
> the holidays, I expect it will be a little longer for this one. So, next
> month sometime look for the minutes of the December 17th Advisory
> Council meeting. The minutes for the AC meetings up to, but not
> including, the one last week have been posted;
It's unfortunate that the minutes will not be posted prior to the
deadline for petitioning the AC's decision.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004