[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 08:08, cja at daydream.com <packetgrrl at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
I agree. I see no reason to distinguish in this case. IMHO, this
policy should apply to ALL addresses returned to ARIN.
> 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>
>> [ 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.
>> 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
>> ARIN has always treated IPv4 legacy addresses different (LRSA, etc)
>> and our discussions make distinctions between "RSA" and "legacy
>> There is likely some minor, but necessary policy required to make
>> whatever will transpire with legacy addresses acceptable and workable
>> to all.
>> 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"
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.