[ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal

michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Wed Mar 21 07:07:47 EDT 2007

> Also, having the RIRs jointly announce such a date gives it 
> credibility.  A 
> few slides by Geoff or Tony, as much as we respect their 
> work, doesn't have 
> the same impact as an official announcement.

But if all we have is the slides from Geoff and Tony to justify the
joint annnouncement, then we are on very slippery ground. In my opinion,
these pseudo-scientific slides cannot justify a countdown policy. 

> I think this is handled well enough under existing policy.  
> An org with an 
> int'l network is _supposed_ to go to the local RIR for each 
> part of that 
> network,

Where does it say that?

> That's why I'd prefer that the IETF and/or IANA mark space (a 
> /8 or two) 
> explicitly reserved for uses such as 4to6 gateways 

That is an entirely separate issue and should be part of an entirely
separate policy discussion. To start with, what IETF documents describe
such 4to6 gateways? This sounds rather like an IPv4/6 equivalent of AS

> This has the (unfortunate?) side effect that even if IANA 
> stops giving out 
> /8s to RIRs on a given date, some will likely run out _months_ before 
> others.

IANA doesn't have to ONLY give out /8s. Towards the end they could give
out smaller blocks. But that is a separate policy discussion.

> For the record, I support Owen's position.  Not because the 
> end game is 
> pretty, because it obviously isn't, but because it makes no 
> sense to me 
> that, as addresses are returned to (or reclaimed by) ARIN, we 
> wouldn't be 
> able to hand them out again.

We are going to need better, more dynamic systems for determining the
right to use IP address blocks such as an official ARIN route server
that is the ultimate authority for all address space allocated or
assigned by ARIN. The clunky whois/rwhois/SWIP system just does not cut

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list