[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Wed Nov 24 10:56:22 EST 2010
What about reserving an additional block, rather than 4.10's /10, for this purpose?
I'm not sure if we'd want to, but that might be better than suspending 4.10...
On Nov 24, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 03:02:01AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
>> I think that there's almost enough information to get people on the same
>> page. We're still not sure what the "final" inventory of address space will
>> be with respect to the last /8's; 3 x /8 at the end or 1 x /8 at the end to
>> add to whatever may be in reserve. Reserve pools are allowed for under the
>> current global allocation policy and are not counted when seeking new /8's.
> I am confused by your statement. My understanding of the current
> policy framework is that ARIN will allocate all IP space not reserved
> for some purpose, and the only reservations I know of are the /10
> we're discussing and the /16 proposed for CI. There is no other
>>> We need to get out of the mindset that if someone has totally ignored
>>> IPv6 transition we have something good waiting for them in the wings.
>>> We don't.
>> The idea is somewhat of a continued transition and supporting the presence
>> of a v4 network for "some" period of time beyond exhaustion, among other
>> things, isn't it?
> I have always seen what you describe as a stretch goal. It's not
> so far out of reach I would call it impossible, but I also don't
> have any confidence that we can reach it.
> My largest concern is that we seem to be going into this situation
> with a bit too much confidence. Many folks feel confident that
> after runout (IANA+ARIN) what we will need is a pool of space for
> transition technologies. I think that is likely but not certain,
> and I also think there are other possibilities.
> In any large transition like this there will be unforeseen circumstances.
> By their very nature they can't be predicted, so there is no way
> to plan for them now other than having a pool of resources available.
> It's the equivalent to a fire department; you can't predict where
> and when a fire or car crash will occur, but it is prudent to invest
> in equipment and training because something will happen.
> It is for this reason I am very down on deciding what to do with
> the last /10 ahead of time. I can see a spectrum of possibilities,
> from the chance of allowing first time resource recipients a
> competitive foothold to it being barely enough to keep critical and
> necessary services online. The only way to know is to go through
> exhaustion and come out the other side, and where the chips fall.
> To put it simply, we have set aside a "Dedicated IPv4 block to
> facilitate IPv6 Deployment", and I am arguing that we may need a
> "Dedicated IPv4 block to keep the IPv4 internet from falling apart".
> I can't be sure though, and I can't be sure we can't do both.
> Reserve it all, find out what goes wrong and where the need is
> greatest, and then pass a policy quickly to address it. 1-3 months
> of no space followed by relief where it is needed most is far more
> useful than the chance blowing the space on something other than
> the greatest need.
> Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
> PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> 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