[arin-ppml] Use of "reserved" address space.

[Roger Marquis]

> On Jun 29, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>> We would be happy to deploy more NAT, including LSN,
>> if it means a smooth transition to IPv6, especially if it
>> also means some responsible organization will someday take responsibility
>> for A) the inevitable process of reclaiming unused legacy allocations,
>> and B) denying new allocations to entities who can use NAT/LSN but are
>> not.  Doesn't look like ARIN or the IETF is capable of being that
>> organization though.
>
> Roger -
>
>  ARIN is responsible, but that's for the implementation of number
>  resource policy which is actually adopted by the community.  If
>  you want that policy to include unused legacy resource reclamation
>  or no allocations for organizations which can make use of NAT/LSN,
>  then you need to introduce policy proposals to that end.
>
>  (See https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_appendix_b.html regarding
>   submitting policy proposals)

Thanks for the pointer John.   The crux of this impasse, however, is the
community vote.  Those with a financial interest in address exhaustion
and their proxies currently have a majority.  Even something as clean as
Proposal 112 doesn't stand a chance.

Roger Marquis