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

[Martin Hannigan]

On 6/17/10 2:22 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> 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.

I thought that we already had a reservation proposal that had been accepted?

4.10  Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment

No?


> 
> 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. 


I think that you are wrong about this. My Blackberry address is owned  by
RIM, not AT*T. 


    OrgName:    Research In Motion Limited
    OrgID:      RIM-9
    Address:    295 Phillip Street
    City:       Waterloo
    StateProv:  ON
    PostalCode: N2L-3W8
    Country:    CA

    NetRange:   216.9.240.0 - 216.9.255.255
    CIDR:       216.9.240.0/20
    NetName:    RIM-NET-02

You can figure the rest out for yourself I suppose. Avoiding RFC 1918
collisions from on-net to off-net, etc. etc. etc. This doesn't seem like a
well qualified reason to support a petition, IMHO.

> 112's author has a point when he says, "No reason to
> blow the last /8 as quickly as all the others."

Sure, but what does the proposal say that the rest of us aren't already?


Best Regards,

-M<