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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 27, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

> 
> On Jun 27, 2011, at 10:43 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> 
>> In light of the IAB's objection, it seems to me that the ARIN board
>> has four options to consider:
>> 
>> 1. Submit an internet draft as the IAB requests, along with the
>> implications of doing so.
>> 
>> 2. Implement 2011-5  as recommended by the AC and community, and over
>> the IAB's objection.
>> 
>> 3. Abandon 2011-5. Proponents may make their case to the IETF.
> 
> 
> The proponents have made their case in the IETF. the outcome of that discussion is a matter of record.
> 

When this was being discussed at IETF, I, for one, opposed it because I did not fully understand
the issue or the implications. I now believe that this should be adopted.

I support IETF/IAB reconsideration of the proposal, though, in the interim, I think it would
be wise for the group that needs these addresses to form a consortium and make an
application to ARIN under existing policies for a standard assignment to then use for
this same purpose.

Owen

> 
>> 4. Implement 2011-5 as a temporary stopgap policy pending further IETF action.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 1. The case for complying with the IAB's request:
>> 
>> The Internet standards process works because of the cordial and
>> cooperative atmosphere between the various NGOs and individual
>> participants. The IETF is indeed the appropriate venue for global
>> assignment of IP addresses to specific purposes as opposed to specific
>> end users. However, we must observe that the IANA has insufficient
>> unicast (class A, B or C) addresses available to award the IETF for
>> the implementation of 2011-5's intended use.
>> 
>> Accordingly, ARIN should reserve the /10 that 2011-5 calls for and
>> hold it unused while championing an RFC through the IETF's standards
>> process that uses the /10 as contemplated in 2011-5. Upon publication
>> of such an RFC, the /10 would be ceded to IANA for use with the RFC.
>> Upon a failure to reach consensus within the IETF process, the /10
>> would be returned to the ARIN free pool for general use.
>> 
>> 
>> 2. The case for implementing 2011-5 over the IAB's objection.
>> 
>> a. ARIN's constituents have expressed a well defined, well supported
>> and consensus need for addresses to be used similar like RFC1918 space
>> but with the expectation that such space crosses the administrative
>> boundary between ISP and end-user and should, thus, not be used by the
>> end-user.
>> 
>> b. The IETF had the opportunity to act on these constituents' concerns
>> but failed to take leadership citing, among other reasons, that it
>> would deplete the pool of addresses available to the RIRs from IANA.
>> 
>> c. The ARIN region is satisfied with depleting its own address pool
>> for this purpose.
>> 
>> d. The IAB's suggestion that the proposal be brought back to the IETF
>> is rendered disingenuous by the fact that no addresses remain at the
>> IANA for implementation.
>> 
>> e. Precedent exists for RIRs to unilaterally act on regional
>> imperatives despite potentially global impact. Witness APNIC's
>> abandonment of needs-based allocation.
>> 
>> Because of these points, ARIN has a moral duty to act on behalf of its
>> constituents. Should the IETF desire to reclaim leadership in this
>> matter, ARIN's open public policy process is available to all comers
>> who may request that the addresses be reassigned to any RFC that is
>> produced.
>> 
>> 
>> 3. The case for abandoning 2011-5:
>> 
>> The IETF is the proper venue for a proposal like 2011-5. Such
>> proposals were considered and rejected. 2011-5 is an end-run around
>> around the proper process.
>> 
>> 
>> 4. The case for 2011-5 as a stopgap pending IETF action:
>> 
>> ARIN constituents within the ARIN region have an immediate and
>> pressing need for IP addresses to be used for the interior of multiple
>> NAT translators. This need is not adequately served by the delay
>> inherent in initiating a fresh proposal in the IETF's standards
>> process, it is not adequately served by RFC1918 and it is poorly
>> served by having every ISP use its own unique space allocated by ARIN.
>> Due to the IETF's failure to act in a timely manner while addresses
>> were still available to them from IANA, ARIN has a duty to act on its
>> constituents' imperative.
>> 
>> Nevertheless, global assignment of addresses to purposes rather than
>> registrants properly belongs with the IETF. ARIN should facilitate the
>> IETF retaking the leadership on the matter by ending the ARIN-region
>> policy and ceding the /10 address block back to IANA after the IETF
>> debates, drafts and publishes an RFC that the board of trustees
>> believes meets or exceeds ARIN constituents' expectations for these
>> addresses.
>> 
>> 
>> For your consideration,
>> Bill Herrin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.