[arin-ppml] Set aside round deux

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 30, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> 
> 
> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>>> Didn't one
>>> of the academics do a peer-reviewed study and a scan of the Internet
>>> last year with results suggesting (among other things) that about
>>> 2/3rds of the allocated address space is not employed on the public
>>> Internet?
>> 
>> Irrelevant.
>> ARIN does not allocate IP addresses for the public Internet.
>> 
>> ARIN's role is to allocate IP addresses to organizations that require them
>> in order to build and operate Internet Protocol networks. While many of these
>> private networks are interconnected to form the public Internet, that is not
>> relevant to ARIN's mission. It has never been mandatory to make your IP
>> network part of the public Internet and there is no good reason to change
>> that.
>> 
>> --Michael Dillon
>> 
> 
> All that is historically true. Now it is only true to a much lesser extent.
> 
I haven't seen any changes to the NRPM which make it true to a lesser extent.

What changes in ARIN policy can you show that make this less true?

> Current reality is that globally unique addresses are of most value on the global network and I would be quite surprised if the percentage of allocation for other purposes was above single percentage digits.
> 

Then I am pretty sure you are surprised.

> Policy already differentiates for multi-homers to the global network. Does that mean that policy requires the allocations to these multi-homers on that basis to be routable?  In my experience, the common impression is yes, it does.
> 
ARIN policy says nothing about whether addresses ARIN issues are routable or not with the exception of disclaimers stating "ARIN cannot guarantee..."

In any case, this has nothing to do with the fact that allocations or assignments for non-public networks are perfectly legitimate under current ARIN policy.

From NRPM 4.3.5:

4.3.5. Non-connected Networks

End-users not currently connected to an ISP and/or not planning to be connected to the Internet are encouraged to use private IP address numbers reserved for non-connected networks (see RFC 1918). When private, non-connected networks require interconnectivity and the private IP address numbers are ineffective, globally unique addresses may be requested and used to provide this interconnectivity.

> That a large portion of allocations as well as legacy space appear to be non-routed is more likely due to happenstance rather than the intentional design and purpose of the allocation at the time it was made.
> 
I do not agree. Of course we are both speculating to a large extent here. However, many things that appear non-routed from one perspective are routed from other perspectives. There is no single unified global routing table.

> I expect, and I hope, that requests for global resources that are not to be addressable on the global network must demonstrate why site-local rfc1918 addressing is not sufficient for their needs, as it is for the overwhelming majority of network not directly addressable from the global network.
> 
As stated in NRPM 4.3.5, they do. However, that is pretty simple:

Hello, we're organization A. We don't want to connect to the internet, but, we do want to exchange traffic with several other organizations using IP. As such, coordination of RFC-1918 between or organizations is infeasible and we request globally unique unicast IP numbers.

> I do believe that suitable need can be demonstrated in a minority of situations.
> 
A minority, perhaps, but, certainly not a particularly limited minority.

> Policy that dictates that requests for global resources must demonstrate a global need for those resources is not out of order.
> 
It may not be out of order, but, it is not current policy. I suspect such a proposal would be unlikely to gain consensus, but, if you feel that it can, I encourage you to write it up and submit it. If you want help, I'm happy to help you.

> Demonstrating justified global need should not nearly be as easy for resources intended to not being addressable on the global network as otherwise.
> 
Again, that isn't current policy, so, you'll need to gain consensus around a proposal to make it so.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100730/13cfff21/attachment.htm>