ARIN-PPML Message

[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development

On Nov 18, 2010, at 11:39 PM, George Bonser wrote:

> 
>> 
>> The term on this is some number of months away. I doubt that we'll
> have
>> something worked out before the next meeting that will reset the
>> expiration.
>> I think it's important to start the discussion and don't see why we
>> can't do
>> that with this. 20 OCT 2011 is ~11 months away.
> 
> That whole Class E thing looks kinda silly now, doesn't it?
> 
> I wonder how much utility a "strategic IP reserve" would be considering
> that there are bazillions of IPs available in v6 space.  I think I would
> favor more of a "tough love" approach and when they are gone, they are
> just plain gone.
> 
> Having those addresses in reserve is going to be nothing but a drama
> generator, I think.  It is like storing up one truck load of grain for a
> city the size of NY in the middle of a scarcity.  It is going to start a
> fight and bickering and people demanding some of that space and each one
> of them believing they are justified in having some of it.
> 
> I would lean against any "special" reserve.
> 

George, a point of clarification:

1.	Current status: There is a /10 reserved for IPv6 transitional
	technologies. Essentially this is intended to provide numbers
	for things like NAT64 gateways and the like.

2.	This proposal would take away the ability to use the /10 for
	transitional technologies. It would not establish criteria in
	there place. It would hold the /10 in reserve until October, 2011
	and then put it back into the normal free pool.

The theory offered by the proposer is that this creates an
opportunity for us to develop policy over the next 11 months
to better address the best use of that reserved space.

In my opinion, we have done spectacularly poorly when we
have attempted to rush policy changes in the best of
circumstances and this would create a need to rush a
contentious policy forward to consensus against a tight
deadline or return the reservation to the general free pool.

I cannot speak to the author's intent, but, in my opinion, this
will effectively be a way to back-door a removal of the
reservation and return the 4.10 space to the general
free pool with an 11 month delay.

Owen