[arin-ppml] Use of "reserved" address space.
marquis at roble.com
Tue Jun 29 21:35:52 EDT 2010
> 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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML