[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 112: Utilization of 10.4.2 resources only via explicit policy

George, Wes E IV [NTK] Wesley.E.George at sprint.com
Fri Apr 30 16:47:47 EDT 2010

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com]
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 4:04 PM

This /8 is not given to ARIN based upon need. It is given based upon its
status as the last one available from the free pool.
[[WEG]] yes, but it would have been allocated based on need otherwise. This just ensures that one RIR doesn't get left out on the final /8 because their run rate cycle is a little different than the others. It's not like ARIN wasn't going to need another /8 around the time that the last ones are being allocated, it's just a question of when.

There is no implicit assumption that it should go to fill needs in the same manner
as all previous ones. I see no reason that it should be squandered in
the same manner as all the rest have without at minimum due
consideration as to possible alternates.
[[WEG]] consideration of alternatives yes, but this last /8 shouldn't be a rainy day fund. If there are alternatives that people in the community believe are not adequately covered by existing policy that we should be reserving blocks for, make specific proposals. Otherwise, using what is available in a manner consistent with ARIN policy is not squandering addresses. IETF/IANA already reserved 16 /8s for "future use" (RFC 1112) and then waited so long to unreserve them that it's now impossible to take advantage of that space because nearly every piece of networking kit on the planet considers it unusable, and the required code changes would take longer than we have left. I just don't see much point in trying to reserve big blocks for "someday" without some concrete sense of when "someday" might be, and why we should care.

If there wont be enough time to work out policy for this last /8 while
holding it in reserve, then there definitely will not be time to work
out policy before it is consumed -- too late.
[[WEG]] Exactly my point. As with your last policy, it is my opinion that it is too late to make any substantive difference in either the runout timeframe or its effects on the Internet and businesses. QOS doesn't manufacture bandwidth any more than carving up and reserving addresses manufactures address space. All of these triggered rules simply complicate things for those of us with a plan underway for transitioning to IPv6 but a need for IPv4 until those plans are completely implemented, while offering those who don't have a plan (or worse, refuse to believe that there's a problem) a false sense of hope.

On the other hand, the policy process does have the ability to move quickly, such as the
emergency pdp process.
[[WEG]] A process which if used in this context will have lots and lots of people calling foul and unfair and non-transparent, etc. Note that I am not making commentary about the absence/presence of the Emergency PDP process nor what are justified uses of it. I am simply saying that at this point, policy changes around this area need to be carefully considered, consensus-based, open, transparent, and deterministic. Otherwise, it simply invites further scrutiny because it creates the impression that ARIN is somehow changing the rules arbitrarily to the benefit of some and the detriment of others.

4.10 is possibly not enough. We do not know yet.
[[WEG]] No disagreement there, but as I said above, we're rapidly approaching the point where it really doesn't matter either way, so if there are legitimate uses, let's have them. Otherwise, run what you brung.


This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list