[arin-ppml] Props. 122 + 123 process?

[Hannigan, Martin]

On 11/26/10 3:01 PM, "Scott Leibrand" <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:

[ snip ]



> 
> As a result, I expect that there will be some time between IANA
> exhaustion and the point at which ARIN is no longer able to fill
> requests for /24s, and that this most likely will not occur until
> after our April meeting.  However, even if the general free pool is
> exhausted of /24s by then, we'll still have the 4.10 reserved /10
> available, so we could modify proposal 123 slightly to carve out a /16
> of that for critical infrastructure.  (That would be 1.6% of the /10.)

The proposal says exactly what it means and nowhere does it indicate that
anything should be withdrawn from 4.10. In fact, it's unclear if 4.10 is
properly sized to begin with.

> I'm even less clear on why 122 should be considered an emergency.  In
> its current form, it simply prevents any allocations out of 4.10's
> reserved /10 for several months.  Since there is a /24 maximum
> allocation size under 4.10, such allocations will only start to be
> needed once ARIN is unable to meet /24 requests out of the general
> pool.  And since requesters of space under 4.10 can only get one block
> every 6 months, I don't expect much of the reserved /10 to be used up
> before our April meeting.
> 
> So, unless you can point out a substantial risk of irreparable harm
> resulting from inaction between now and April, I don't see any need
> for emergency policy action on these proposals, and would instead
> suggest we run 123, and any suggestions people have for improving
> 4.10, though the normal policy process.
> 


Scott, the commentary regarding any sort of exigent request are in the
rationale, not the policy. I think deciding what is and isn't an emergency
is up to the AC. One would have thought that most of this would have been
done already though and not having at least the CI portion of this thought
out prior to exhaustion merely "looks" bad.


Best,

-M<