ARIN-PPML Message

[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses

So let's try this again. I have multiple version from AC discussions
and PPML discussions related to 131, 2009-3 which is formally
abandoned and not relevant to this discussion and...and... -- it
certainly is confusing as some have noted.

The RSA component is not currently part of the discussion. We need to
wait out the process to see what is going to transpire. I'm still
opposing the proposal since the language that was submitted was
changed before it was even placed on the docket and merging legacy
considerations with address space that is clearly controlled by ARIN
is likely to result in confusion.

I think that as long as it makes it to Puerto Rico it doesn't really
matter so it's probably worthwhile to wait it out untl then and stop
polluting Tony's mailbox. :)

Best,

-M<



On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> The recycle times are most likely not relevant since legacy addrs are
> not generally filtered like IANA addrs that were unallocated were.
>
> I'm opposed to the language in the 'update' and you should be as well.
>
> Adding in the link to the RSA creates a hole that will likely result
> in unpredictability of the performance of this policy. We have lots of
> policy breakage like this; too much room for interpretation.
>
> In this case, a narrow, succinct and predictable policy is required so
> that proper expectations are set regionally and globally.  What we
> have here in this version is not what the intent was when I wrote it.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Marty
>
>
> On 2/22/11, Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:
>> Thanks, Bill, for clarifying.
>>
>> If I make the assumption that legacy and non-legacy space are almost
>> equivalent in terms of their reusability after their return, for
>> simplicity's sake it would be easier to keep the recycle times in sync,
>> either:
>> a) keep the verbiage of 2011-6 so that it includes all space and specify a
>> time
>> b) exclude legacy space in 2011-6 and leave recycle time to the discretion
>> of ARIN staff.
>> In both cases, the recycle time would be effectively the same.
>>
>> If we don't specify a time period in policy 2011-6, I'm not sure if author's
>> concern regarding "sit[ting] idle" would be met.  Perhaps min/max time would
>> give the ARIN staff the flexibility but also address the author's concern.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: wherrin at gmail.com [mailto:wherrin at gmail.com] On Behalf Of William
>> Herrin
>> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 11:14 PM
>> To: frnkblk at iname.com
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:
>>> Does the existing "RSA-covered address recovery" include the 30-day
>> window?
>>> In your previous comment I know you wanted to leave that timeframe to the
>>> discretion of ARIN staff, but the timeframe is one reason why we may want
>> to
>>> include RSA-covered addresses in 2011-6.
>>
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>> I believe the recycle period is currently much longer, but then we
>> haven't run out of addresses yet. If we don't set it in policy, ARIN
>> staff is free to set a then-optimal recycle period.
>>
>> -Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>