[arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension]
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> I think that isn't the argument. I think the argument is we have one or more mega-ISPs wanting
> this policy to pass, but if it does not, will be forced to apply for resources for [NAT444].
> Current policy allows for them to number the necessary hosts accordingly, so, if this policy
> does not pass, there is nothing at all that would prevent them from each obtaining large
> blocks of addresses for this purpose. I don't know if any one of them could justify a /10
> individually, but, I am quite certain that they can collectively easily exceed a /10. I'd estimate
> that they can probably come close to a /7, collectively.
They -could- choose to use RFC1918 addresses. They won't for all the
reasons you've said. But they could.
Otherwise, agree with everything above.
So, Wes, Owen: Let's put our money where our mouths are so to speak.
If these addresses won't be wasted, let's require the policy to prove
it. Adjust the policy so that:
1) Within 6 months of ratification at least 10 ARIN allocation holders
must register with ARIN an intent to use addresses within the /10 in
their network within 24 months. If fewer than 10 register that intent
then the policy is void and the /10 is returned to the ARIN pool.
2) After the first 24 months and every 24 months thereafter ARIN must
review the use of the /10 and make a positive determination that at
least 10 ARIN allocation holders are actually using it. If fewer than
10 are using it and ARIN does not otherwise have at least a
/8-equivalent available for allocation (i.e. IPv4 isn't yet on the
decline), the whole pool is recycled into ARIN's free pool with a 12
month delay for the 9 or fewer folks using it to renumber.
Owen, if we can't find 10 ISPs who are willing to step up and say
they'll use these addresses then Wes will have made his point: this
won't be a good use of a /10. Can you accept that result?
Wes, if a non-trivial number of ISPs actually use the addresses in
parallel then plainly this was a better use than assigning the
addresses to ISPs individually. Can you accept that result?
I hear a lot of ideology in this debate. Are either/both of you
willing to measure and follow the data instead?
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004