[arin-ppml] Petition for advancement of Policy Proposal #112 to Draft Policy status

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
> Following the AC's abandonment of Policy Proposal #112, I formally petition
> to advance to draft policy status the proposal and for it to be discussed at
> an upcoming ARIN Public Policy meeting.
>
> Statements of support for this petition would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Full policy text available at
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-April/017410.html

I SUPPORT the petition to advance proposal 112 to formal discussion on
PPML and at the October meeting.  William Herrin, speaking for myself.

I SUPPORT the petition for two reasons:

1. This is an elegantly simple proposal. It would serve well as a
proxy for whether *any* IPv4 reservation proposals are acceptable to
the community. Independent of support for the proposal itself, the
community should have the opportunity to offer clear guidance to ARIN
regarding the general class of reservation proposals as a whole. Prior
reservation proposals were too complex to clearly differentiate
between the folks who disliked the concept of reservation and the
folks who merely objected to the specifics.

2. My Verizon blackberry holds a globally routable IP address. As far
as I know, no software I can get for it is incompatible with NAT.
Nevertheless, in a known scarcity environment Verizon has deployed a
globally routable IP address to my blackberry. Sloppiness? Maybe. But
my opinion is that stashing addresses on cell phones is a convenient
way to hoard IPv4 addresses while remaining in full compliance with
current policy. 112's author has a point when he says, "No reason to
blow the last /8 as quickly as all the others."

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004