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

[Joe Maimon]

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:
>


Hey Folks,

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 
rough consensus.

Since responsibility to number the users of its members then rests with 
the consortium, I cannot fathom it not meeting needs-based justification 
requirements.

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 
purpose.


Joe