[ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2
marla_azinger at eli.net
Tue Nov 9 12:24:10 EST 2004
Whether a formal statement is possible right now or not....I applaud Leo for
bringing this issue up as a discussion point on the ppml and not just to the
IETF mailing list.
Leo- since you have clearly read this proposal in detail. Can you please
clarify your interpretations on the following:
You wrote: "The proposal is likely to create confusion in the ARIN region
about which prefixes can be routed on the Public Internet."
1. Can you clarify what specifically could be confusing?
You Wrote: "If the prefixes in the proposal become globally routed by major
Public Internet ISP's it has the potential to impact ARIN's viability."
2. How do you see this will impact ARIN's viability?
Thank you for your time
From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 9:07 AM
To: 'Leo Bicknell'; ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on
draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2
Leo Bicknell wrote:
> ICANN came to ARIN and said, "ARIN, ICANN would like to know
> how ARIN thinks IPv6 space should be allocated from IANA to
> ARIN and the other RIR's, please tell us your opinion."
> A bunch of people scratched their heads and asked the basic
> question, "how do we get the ARIN membership to agree on a
> recommendation to ICANN?" Well, the only process we had to
> get the members to agree on anything was the policy proposal
> process. So, a proposal was generated, 2004-8, available at
> In the end, many of us seem to agree that we need a process
> outside the policy process to propose "ARIN Statements",
> "ARIN Open Letters", "ARIN Recommendations", or whatever you
> might want to call them. Also, due to the fact that deadlines
> for these comments are imposed outside of ARIN (by ICANN, or
> in the IPv6 case the IETF comment
> period) the process needs to be "quicker". That may still
> require a members meeting, but at the least there should be a
> way to get it out in a single member's meeting.
> To come back to this IPv6 statement. This is a proposed
> statement for that new, as yet non-existent process. Others
> (including myself) are working on drafting the process, but I
> wanted to get people thinking about this issue in parallel so
> one did not need to hold up the other.
I understand and agree that another mechanism for 'formal' communication by
ARIN is needed. Indeed, we are working on this, but this process must be
vetted by the ARIN community especially if it is to happen in a timely
manner. Our region works on a protocol of consensus and we need a way that
the community recognizes consensus.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't work in parallel to find a way to
communicate important concerns to IETF over the IPv6 issue at hand. I just
don't think a 'formal ARIN' message is possible at this time.
CAIT at Washington University in St. Louis
More information about the ARIN-PPML