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

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address

On Feb 22, 2011, at 7:19 AM, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
> [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
> 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.
[WEG] No, that's not flawed logic, it just doesn't agree with your view. Possible != only course of
action. No matter how good of citizens they're trying to be, if the two are in conflict, "right
thing for the Internet and the world" loses vs. "right thing the company what signs the paycheck"
most of the time.

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.
[WEG] It failed because people were unconvinced by the same arguments that are being used here, but
that's not why I brought regional relevance into the discussion. I gave some of the same criticism
before too. The study is not representative of the pool of devices available outside of the JDM and
so is too narrow in focus for anywhere except Japan.
I think it's pretty simple to provide real evidence to support your point:
Take each of the "usual suspect" manufacturers of CPE gear, and plot out the default block that they
use - look for commonalities (eg do DLink and Linksys use the same default?) as well as what space
is not in conflict with any of them. Compare against what you know about your personal network's
installed base (or failing that, a rough estimate of installed base that is derived from market
share of each manufacturer * your customer size), and characterize the order of magnitude of risk
for each block within 1918, either by /24 or by larger block. If you can show that there's more than
a trivial number of devices populating each block, then that will be good evidence that 1918 isn't
workable. Otherwise we're left with comments like, "well X% of 20M users is still a huge number to
have to reconfigure" without knowing what the value of X actually is.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6781 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>