ARIN-PPML Message

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

I also question the statement regarding the nature of the consensus that 
was reached regarding the current 4.10.  I will agree that there was 
consensus that the current 4.10 is "insufficient" and needs additional 
guidance provided to staff regarding what the community thinks is 
appropriate use of this reserved block.

But, I did not hear a consensus that the rational for 2008-5, which is 
now 4.10, was fundamentally wrong.  Or that we do not need to reserve a 
block of IPv4 for deployment of IPv6 by those that will not have any 
other IPv4 in the future.

https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_5.html

Therefore, I not sure there was a consensus that the current 4.10 is 
"potentially damaging and unbalanced with respect to transition efforts."

However, I would like the author of this proposal to further explain his 
view of the consensus that was reached, and how the current 4.10 is 
"potentially damaging and unbalanced with respect to transition efforts."

Do others support the author's view regarding the consensus that was 
reached or that the current 4.10 is damaging?

If we are going to revisit this issue again at this late date in terms 
of IPv4 run-out I would like to see a very strong show of support from 
the community to do so.  Without a strong show of support from the 
community to revisit this issue again, I believe that we should simply 
leave 4.10 as it is until staff has some implementation experience to 
report.


On 11/18/10 17:27 CST, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I oppose this policy. I do not agree that there was consensus that the
> existing 4.10 was potentially damaging. There was consensus that
> the proposal in question which attempted to carve off a little piece of
> pony for all the various stakeholders was not an improvement over
> the existing 4.10.
>
> This proposal is far too little far too late.
>
> Owen
>
> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:09 PM, ARIN wrote:
...
>> Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development
>>
>> Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan
>>
>> Proposal Version: 1.0
>>
>> Date: 18 Nov 2010
>>
>> Proposal type: Delete, Temporary
>>
>> Policy term: October 20, 2011 00:00 UTC
>>
>> Policy statement:
>>
>> Upon receipt of the last /8 that the IANA will allocate to ARIN per the
>> Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space,
>> ARIN will place a contiguous /10 in a reserved pool for a use to be
>> determined at a later date. If adopted, this proposal will delete
>> Section 4.10 permanently and then expire per the policy term.
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> During the attempted fix of Section 4.10 we had consensus that 4.10 was
>> insufficient and potentially damaging and unbalanced with respect to
>> transition efforts.  This will provide for time to review  our current
>> depletion strategy and improve upon it to the benefit of the entire
>> community.
>>
>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================