[arin-ppml] Props. 122 + 123 process?
Frank Bulk - iName.com
frnkblk at iname.com
Tue Nov 30 01:27:56 EST 2010
I'll be the first one to admit that I may be missing the boat on the
Proposal 4.10/122/123 threads, but it seems to me that we ought to:
a) keep the /10 from 4.10 for IPv6 *transitional* technologies (i.e. DSLite,
CGN, NAT64, etc).
b) establish via emergency procedures a separate /16 (I would fully support
a /10) for CI as described in Proposal 123
c) establish same (or separate) regular and repeated policy review timers
for each of the two pools, beginning after a certain point (i.e. when 2010-1
kicks in, and then review again every 9 months thereafter)
d) with non-autorenew timers, such that if the ARIN community cannot
re-confirm consensus at renewal time, that unallocated space in those pools
is returned to the free pool
a) having these plans in place *before* ARIN's last /8 is assigned
demonstrates to the broader public that the networking community has a plan
in place, which will help maintain "customer confidence" and reduce IPv4
netblock speculation. If we do it afterward there *will* be the perception
that we were reactionary and don't have what it takes to plan accordingly.
Let's show some leadership here. Better to attempt to do something right
than do nothing at all.
b) the sizes of these two pools are small enough in the grand scheme of
things that it is better to be safe than sorry.
c) having two pools rather than one will prevent a run-out of all remaining
addresses for just one of the two purposes, something that might occur if
there was just one pool.
d) we can always return unallocated space to the free pool via a new
proposal or not acting on a review timer -- no real harm done.
1) having a regular review process avoids the Class E issue that was
2) if the policy for that /10 is working well it can be quickly reviewed
and renewed for an additional time period
3) if the policy is not working well it can be changed through the
regular policy process, or at renewal time
4) if we can't agree at renewal time we're under some time pressure to
resolve the issue at the risk of letting the addresses return to the free
5) if we don't care about one or both of pools, they'll naturally lapse
into the free pool
6) if we run out on one (successful!) we still have an opportunity to
write up a policy to draw on the other /10
e) creating a pool for CI may keep the governments represented by ARIN
members from attempting to intervene in a last-minute kind of way to "save
space" for national security reasons
We've agreed that we don't know which IPv6 transition approach(es) will be
the winner(s), and I think most of us agree that we need some space for CI
in situations where even our best planning didn't anticipate a certain need.
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 9:15 AM
To: Scott Leibrand
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Props. 122 + 123 process?
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.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML