[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - IAB comment
William Herrin wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> In light of the IAB's objection, it seems to me that the ARIN board
> has four options to consider:
In light of the IAB's objections, I invite the parties in favor of this
policy and desirous of utilizing the approach advocated by this policy
to consider moving forward as a group to implement this solution with
purpose tailored constructs and resources.
Form a consortium. Use 8.3 space to "fund it" or just simply assign the
space to the consortium. Build your running code and then gain your
Since responsibility to number the users of its members then rests with
the consortium, I cannot fathom it not meeting needs-based justification
In fact this option could prove to be superior to the consortium
members, since authority to utilize the numbers would come from the
consortium and as such does not become rfc1918 equivalent. Documentation
and accountability remains possible.
Nobody needs rfc permission to number multiple hosts under their
authority with the same numbers.
Structuring membership in the consortium as returning access to more
resources than you kicked in should provide plenty of self sufficiency.
Except of course, if potential members discover that they prefer to keep
their global unicast space globally unicastable and instead utilize
portions of rfc1918 or otherwise non globally unicasted space for the