[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development
bicknell at ufp.org
Tue Nov 23 09:29:32 EST 2010
In a message written on Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:36:42PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> > Q2: Does NRPM 4.10 need to be updated at some point?
> > Again, I think the answer is yes, and it seems we have quite a bit of
> > community support for some kind of revisions.
> Yes, but, I think finding consensus on what kind of revisions will be quite
I don't, I just think we're trying at the wrong time.
It will only take weeks, or perhaps months past _ARIN_ runout to
collect a lot of information about what the world really looks like
on the ground when you can't get IPv4 space. With that information
I believe consensus will develop quite quickly around the best thing
we can do.
I realize folks want to have this define in advance, but I just
don't see how to do that in this case. If we're going to modify
4.10 in any way I think it should be to not give out any space (even
for "transition technologies"). We need a period of several months
where folks are forced to do without IPv4 to figure out what really
is and isn't the most useful way to use the last /10.
Part of the reason there are so many views now is that each person
has a slightly different prediction for what the world looks like
after run-out. What you're trying to get consensus on isn't a
policy, it's on a view of the future. If we just wait for it to
happen there will be no more disagreement on what it looks like.
If we end up with a month or two where this sits unable to be given
out, oh well.
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
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML