[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - IAB comment
The problems are multiple:
1. It will increase the number of customers that must be moved from
current access technologies to NAT444.
2. It will not allow the larger ISPs to approach this on a regional basis
(which 2001-5 would). By using 2011-5, the ISP can set up a defined
address space per region and start allocating to NAT boxes and
customers. While it won't provide one globally unique IP per customer,
it will allow each customer to have a regionally unique IP.
3. The approach you recommend below requires a lot of moving pieces
to all fall into place at the same time or nearly the same time and is a
much more complex and perilous migration scheme.
4. See 1 above... it bears repeating.
On Jun 29, 2011, at 2:24 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 06:40:53 +0000
> John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 28, 2011, at 3:05 AM, David Farmer wrote:
>> I will convey this to the ARIN Board as one possible course of action
>> when it considers the IAB response. Making the reservation for this
>> purpose without conferring with IAB would not have respected the nature
>> of the ARIN/IANA relationship, and the exact degree of engagement with
>> the IETF community which is most appropriate is a matter of judgement.
>> To the extent that we have a clear document in the IETF which explains
>> why the reservation is needed, along with a strong show of support in
>> that community, the path forward will not be difficult.
> It also needs to describe what the problem is with ISPs
> reusing/recycling parts of their existing public address space for
> this purpose i.e.
> 1. move 1/16, 1/8, 1/4 etc. of customers behind 1st LSN box.
> 2. duplicate the use of the ISP's existing public address space being
> used by that first "LSN domain" group of customers on subsequent LSN
> domains for the rest of the customer base.
> For example, if an ISP has 8 LSN domains, once they're deployed, the
> ISP has recovered 7/8ths of their existing public allocation through
> duplicating 1/8th of it 8 times. They could give most of that 7/8ths
> back to their RIR, which will increase the available IPv4 address pool,
> extending it's life. On the scale of the ISPs proposing 2011-5, the
> return of IPv4 addresses should be significant, even if they only
> deployed 2 LSN domains (i.e. recover 1/2 their IPv4 addresses) across
> their customer base. An ISP would have a financial incentive to return
> these addresses, to reduce their RIR fees.
> This method won't provide a unique and individual IP address per
> customer within the ISP, however that is not a requirement stated in
> 2011-5, and nor will the /10 provide that for some of the ISPs behind
> this proposal.
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.