[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses

[Chris Grundemann]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 08:08, cja at daydream.com <packetgrrl at gmail.com> wrote:
> Martin,
> I thought that one of the purposes for this proposal was to provide specific
> guidance for returned blocks because of the absence of a policy for the IANA
> to hand out blocks longer than a /8.  There is no policy at IANA for blocks
> of legacy or non-legacy space longer than a /8.   It seems to me that this
> policy should include both legacy and non-legacy space so that it is clear
> what ARIN will do with all blocks that are returned.
> Thanks

I agree. I see no reason to distinguish in this case. IMHO, this
policy should apply to ALL addresses returned to ARIN.

> ----Cathy
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>> > Marty - Can you shed some light onto why this is (and needs to be)
>> > limited to legacy space? I don't see a need for the distinction but
>> > could certainly be missing something.
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> In the past, we've heard numerous ARIN folks talking about "clear
>> instructions from the community".
>>
>> Right now, we have multiple global policies circulating trying to
>> determine what should be done with ipv4 legacy addresses in the ARIN
>> region.
>>
>> ARIN has always treated IPv4 legacy addresses different (LRSA, etc)
>> and our discussions make distinctions between "RSA" and "legacy
>> holders".

Understood.

>> There is likely some minor, but necessary policy required to make
>> whatever will transpire with legacy addresses acceptable and workable
>> to all.

Possibly.

>> This would be a clear instruction that would leave no ambiguity with
>> respect to what the community wants ARIN to do with legacy addresses.
>> This proposal leaves noone wondering what will happen to addresses
>> returned to ARIN and it codifies the requirement.

I agree that this provides clear instruction. What I still don't
understand is why that instruction should apply only to "legacy"
resources.

>> Is there a problem with resources already in ARIN's possession being
>> returned to "inventory"? If there is, in the interest of clarity, I
>> think it would be better to submit an ASCP item or propose something
>> specific IMHO.

I think it would be much easier to simply remove the word legacy from
this text and make it apply to all resources.

~Chris

>> I've softened this enough to hopefully clarify it's intent. As a side
>> benefit, it should also encourage people writing global policies to
>> work together.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -M<
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -M<
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>




-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.theIPv6experts.net
www.coisoc.org