[arin-ppml] Petition for advancement of Policy Proposal #112 to Draft Policy status
marty at akamai.com
Thu Jun 17 18:55:23 EDT 2010
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
> 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
> 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
Address: 295 Phillip Street
NetRange: 220.127.116.11 - 18.104.22.168
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?
More information about the ARIN-PPML