ARIN

On Nov 21, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On 11/20/10 9:18 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 3:04 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>>> Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure
>>> 
>>> Policy term: 36 Months from Implementation
>> 
>> Nitpick: For 36 months following implementation.
>> 
>> The other way could be misunderstood to mean "starts 36 months later."
> 
> Ok.
> 
>>> 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 /16 in reserve for Critical Infrastructure.
>>> 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.
>> 
>> I'm not sure its necessary to have a contiguous reserve, but I SUPPORT
>> the policy proposal as written anyway.
> 
> 
> I thought about this and then saw Leo's post. Removing the word contiguous
> should be good enough.
> 
Actually I would argue that you should rewrite it as:

ARIN will place space totaling the equivalent of a /16 in reserve...

If you just remove the word contiguous, it becomes ambiguous whether
you want a real /16 (contiguous) or space equivalent to a /16 (doesn't
matter if it's contiguous).

Unlike proposal 122 which is dangerous and harmful, I have no
objection to moving this forward and would encourage the board
to consider moving it through the emergency process with the
modification suggested above.

Owen