[ppml] IPv4 exhaustion - so what?
BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Fri Apr 6 13:17:01 EDT 2007
Thanks Stephen (and David)
Going into the PR public policy meeting, getting this kind of
straight-forward 'for or against' itemizing makes for easy assessment by
the AC. Don't get me wrong. We would all like to see comments and
explanations, but in the end...please state your up or down opinion.
And let's see....if another hundred or two of you do this we will have
some real idea of what's up...
Please don't think to yourself that others have expressed your
opinion...we need your personal sentiment expressed.
Thanks to all.....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:56 AM
> To: David Williamson
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 exhaustion - so what?
> 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
> 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
> 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
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Manage your mailing list
> subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
More information about the ARIN-PPML