[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 110: Preservation of minimal IPv4 Resources for New and Small Organizations and for IPv6 Transition

[Chris Grundemann]

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:46, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
<snip>
> ##### Rationale: #####
>
> This proposal is intended to apply both to ISP's and to End Users and
> only for IPv4 resources. This proposal intends to expand upon the
> concepts originally introduced into policy section 4.10 by merging
> sections 4.10 requirements and intended uses, with some modifications,
> along with additional pool definitions. It can coexist with other
> proposals, providing the availability of the requested sizes for the
> reserved pools are preserved in combination with any other policy. Other
> proposals that modify minimum allocation sizes and justification
> requirements will have indirect effects on the clauses of this section.
> This is intentional.
<snip>

I oppose this proposal.

IMVHO: This proposal takes two possibly good ideas, throws them in a
blender and adds unnecessary complication to the mix.

Let me explain:

I see the two primary ideas presented as:
1) Modify section 4.10 (which reserves IPv4 space for IPv6 migrations).
2) Reserve an IPv4 block for new entrants.

My first piece of advice to the author is to acknowledge that these
goals are almost completely unrelated to each other; they do not need
to be part of the same policy and probably should not be part of the
same proposal if you wish to ever gain consensus. Separating them into
two distinct proposals will make the details of what and why you are
proposing them much more clearly understandable.

As far as the two ideas themselves, let me start with the second. I
could possibly be convinced that we need a block reserved from the
last /8 specifically for new entrants (those w/out any current ARIN
resources). I am unlikely to be convinced that this requires a change
to section 4.10 though. A much better approach IMO would be to add a
section 4.11 for this new purpose and to reserve a block (another /10
perhaps) specifically for this new purpose.

To the first idea of modifying the current "Dedicated IPv4 block to
facilitate IPv6 Deployment," I am again open to improvements but I am
not sure that what is being proposed here is an improvement, partly
because of the seemingly unnecessary complications being introduced.

If this proposal were separated into two distinct (and clear)
proposals I would be happy to entertain them both individually and
discuss them on their own merits. As it stands I will very likely
remain opposed to this incarnation and thus more detailed analysis is
withheld.

$0.02
~Chris


> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>


-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.coisoc.org