[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development
BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Fri Nov 19 09:30:56 EST 2010
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 7:54 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool
> for Future Policy Development
> I also question the statement regarding the nature of the
> consensus that was reached regarding the current 4.10. I
> will agree that there was consensus that the current 4.10 is
> "insufficient" and needs additional guidance provided to
> staff regarding what the community thinks is appropriate use
> of this reserved block.
> But, I did not hear a consensus that the rational for 2008-5,
> which is now 4.10, was fundamentally wrong. Or that we do
> not need to reserve a block of IPv4 for deployment of IPv6 by
> those that will not have any other IPv4 in the future.
> Therefore, I not sure there was a consensus that the current
> 4.10 is "potentially damaging and unbalanced with respect to
> transition efforts."
> However, I would like the author of this proposal to further
> explain his view of the consensus that was reached, and how
> the current 4.10 is "potentially damaging and unbalanced with
> respect to transition efforts."
> Do others support the author's view regarding the consensus
> that was reached or that the current 4.10 is damaging?
> If we are going to revisit this issue again at this late date
> in terms of IPv4 run-out I would like to see a very strong
> show of support from the community to do so. Without a
> strong show of support from the community to revisit this
> issue again, I believe that we should simply leave 4.10 as it
> is until staff has some implementation experience to report.
> On 11/18/10 17:27 CST, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > I oppose this policy. I do not agree that there was
> consensus that the
> > existing 4.10 was potentially damaging. There was consensus
> that the
> > proposal in question which attempted to carve off a little piece of
> > pony for all the various stakeholders was not an
> improvement over the
> > existing 4.10.
> > This proposal is far too little far too late.
> > Owen
> > On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:09 PM, ARIN wrote:
> >> Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development
> >> Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan
> >> Proposal Version: 1.0
> >> Date: 18 Nov 2010
> >> Proposal type: Delete, Temporary
> >> Policy term: October 20, 2011 00:00 UTC
> >> Policy statement:
> >> Upon receipt of the last /8 that the IANA will allocate to
> ARIN per
> >> the Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address
> >> Space, ARIN will place a contiguous /10 in a reserved pool
> for a use
> >> to be determined at a later date. If adopted, this proposal will
> >> delete Section 4.10 permanently and then expire per the
> policy term.
> >> Rationale:
> >> During the attempted fix of Section 4.10 we had consensus
> that 4.10
> >> was insufficient and potentially damaging and unbalanced
> with respect
> >> to transition efforts. This will provide for time to review our
> >> current depletion strategy and improve upon it to the
> benefit of the
> >> entire community.
> >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
> 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