[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space forIPv4 Address Extension - IAB comment

[Mike Burns]

> As I said, I now believe the proper course of action is to hold off on
> any action and coordinate with the IAB.  But, ARIN probably needs to 
> clarify its exceptions with the IAB asking for the IAB to ensure fair and 
> timely consideration within the IETF and by the IESG, and that any 
> delaying tactics would be unacceptable. ARIN should probably reiterate 
> that while this may be a technical allocation, it has serious addressing 
> policy implications that are within the scope of ARIN's policy process. 
> This is not simply a case of forum shopping, the ARIN policy community has 
> legitimate concerns regarding this issue and that need to be provided 
> equal weight to the technical considerations of the IETF.
>
> David Farmer

I agree with David Farmer. The information he conveys is a dealbreaker for 
2011-5, IMO.

There is an MoU in place which binds IANA to RFC 2860, which states:

 4.2. In the event of technical dispute between the IANA and the IESG,
   both will seek guidance from the IAB whose decision shall be final.


It's wasteful to allocate GUA space to multiple allocants for the purpose of 
CGN.
But if they have to use RFC1918 space for this purpose, some things will 
break in the network.

This sounds like a technical dispute and rules are in place to deal with 
these disputes.

We should abide by the rules and work on convincing the IAB to change its 
decision in this regard.
Which sucks, but in the technical debate on this issue, we are choosing 
between bad and less bad.
What we can't choose is whether or not to play by the established rules if 
we want Internet self-governance to persist.
We should be considering how best to change the mind of the IAB, but 2011-5 
is a policy which overlaps IETF and IANA roles and has to be settled by the 
IAB.
Would it help to convince IAB if we garnered the support of multiple RIRs 
and pressed the issue with a united front?

Regards,
Mike