[arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension]

On Feb 22, 2011, at 7:19 AM, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:58 AM
> To: Joel Jaeggli
> Cc: ARIN-PPML List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address
> Extension]
> What I expect will happen is that they will, instead, each seek large allocations from ARIN to
> support their NAT444 intermediary addresses and get them under current policies, thus accelerating
> IPv4 exhaustion.
> [WEG] We're going around in circles again. If they were able to justify this allocation, they would
> have already requested it (prior to IANA exhaust) in an effort to reduce or eliminate the need for
> NAT in the first place. The problem is that we're trying to insulate against something that may or
> may not happen based on expectation of future growth. Assuming that the same ISP already has enough
> addresses for their current customers, it is perfectly legitimate to expect them to transition some
> of those existing customers to CGN so that they have address space available for NAT pools, outside
> AND inside.
> Wes George

Your logic here is flawed. It's entirely possible that they would first attempt to do the right
thing and request a shared block through the policy process falling back to these requests
while they are still possible, but, after exhausting the policy option.

You criticize them from bringing a study that is not ARIN-specific to the ARIN region
for what is a global issue, but, they tried to address this globally and it failed to
achieve resolution.