[ppml] IPv4 exhaustion - so what?
stephen at sprunk.org
Fri Apr 6 12:55:37 EDT 2007
Thus spake "David Williamson" <dlw+arin at tellme.com>
> At the moment, however, I'd like to see more feedback on some
> of the existing policy proposals. There's been nearly zero
> feedback or discussion on all but one or two of *twelve* that are
> on the agenda. I can't imagine that we'll just rubberstamp ten or
> eleven of them, and spend the rest of the time on just a couple.
> Surely someone out there is either for or against some of the
> current proposals.
Okay, I'll take the bait.
2006-7: I voiced my disagreement with this proposal when it was introduced,
based on a lack of proven need for the change and the likely detrimental
effects it would have on the DFZ -- not that ARIN controls the DFZ, but we
have a long history of considering the effects of policies on it...
2007-1, -2, -3: These seem very straightforward, documenting what exists. I
don't see any reason for debate; they truly are rubber-stamp items.
2007-4: Again, there's not much room for debate; all policies are "interim"
in some sense, and this language is a hold-over from the draft global IPv6
policy. We need a lot more clean-up proposals like this, which will also
likely not cause much debate as long as they're only changing the wording
and not actual policy.
2007-5: I disagree with the supposed lack of implications of this policy.
/48 should be enough for all but the largest sites, and those sites most
likely will be getting direct assignments from ARIN, not from LIRs. If LIRs
are allowed to assign excessive amounts of space to end users with no
oversight, that will increase the amount/size of allocations ARIN needs to
make to LIRs. Absent an actual policy on what justifies an assignment
greater than /48, we should continue to require ARIN oversight of these
assignments. Since no such policy has been submitted, I must be against
2007-6: I honestly have no opinion on this policy; I'll let the folks who
actually live in the DFZ figure it out.
2007-7 through -11: These appear to be requests from the ARIN staff, either
directly or indirectly, and are clarifying existing policy that is currently
difficult to implement or documenting unwritten policies, not making any
substantive changes that would require much debate. If anyone disagrees
with them, I invite them to comment, but I don't see much to disagree with.
2007-12: I think my disagreement with this proposal, and the reasons why, is
well-documented by now :)
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
More information about the ARIN-PPML