[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - IAB comment
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:43 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 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
Personally, I'd like to see the board chart a course similar to option
4. Our ISPs need this address space NOW, not 3 years from now when
their multilevel NAT deployments are done. However, ARIN does not
provide the proper forum nor is the NRPM the proper mechanism to work
through and document the technical details which are not, as
previously mentioned, the same as RFC 1918. That forum will be found
within the IETF.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> I believe there may be a fifth option.
> I believe that the ISPs who need this space might be able to form a consortium and
> use this as a standard justification to have the IPs registered to the consortium
> as an organization. It would be up to the consortium after that whether they
> expressed a willingness for non-members to make duplicate use of their
> address space for this purpose or not.
Let's call that the nuclear option. If the IETF won't be reasonable
and the ARIN BoT won't stand up and say, "hey, we're doin' it," we
could drag the shared transition space out of the established TCP/IP
standards process altogether. I'm not sure it's wise to create
precedent that gives other entities like the ITU a back door to come
after us for their clever ideas.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004