[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:02:00AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> There's already a pool established. The mechanism for it's distribution is
> what is in question. If we don't kill that before the last 5 /8's are
> allocated from the IANA, it will be formally established and available.

So basically this policy conflates two issues:

1) We may not want to use this space for transitional technologies after
   all, but some folks feel when the last 5 /8's trigger it we are
   "locked in".

2) If we don't use this space we want to return it to the free pool.

#2 is entirely premature.  We can't evauate if we need this space
for transition technlogies or any other IPv4->IPv6 transition
purposes until after runout and we see what happens.  Any discussion
before that is speculation.

I might accept that the first part is a problem, particularly to
the extent that we haven't (as far as I know) defined which "transition
technologies" qualify and to a lesser extent that we don't know for sure
that we want to use the space in that way.

Back to my comments from yesterday, if we want to fix #1 by changing
4.10 to hold the /10 in reserve with no way to allocate it for the time
being I would be ok with that, we can make the decision on how to
allocate it (including return to the free pool) after run out.

To the extent #2 sticks around, immediately, with a date, or whatever
it's a deal breaker for me, and kills this policy.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20101119/6cd85241/attachment.sig>