[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses - Last Call

[Chris Grundemann]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:50, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>
> This fundamentally changes the character of the proposal. The point of
> the original proposal was to tell ARIN what to do with returned
> addresses -until further notice-, not to tell them what to do pending
> activity at IANA.
>
> We don't want addresses returned to IANA. Period. Unconditionally.
> Someday we'll change our minds, but not today. Please stop sneaking
> exceptions back in and pretending it's the same policy proposal.

I understand that you do not want addresses returned to IANA. Period.
But the majority of the community appears to disagree with you. The
community does seem to agree, however, that IPv4 addresses should not
be stranded at the IANA.

WRT the current changes, I would like to point out that the original
rationale for this proposal (ARIN-prop-131) mentioned global policy
directly:

Adopting this proposal will result in the clarification of the status
of returned legacy addresses. There either is a global policy, a globally
coordinated policy, or there isn't. If there isn't, the addresses will
not sit idle if there is need.
The ARIN AC should review and determine what action if any should be
taken at their next available opportunity, or sooner if they deem warranted.
[http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-January/019533.html]

And that the current, revised, rationale still makes a point to
discuss creating clarity:

Adopting this proposal will result in the clarification of the status
of returned legacy addresses. IPv4 address resources should not sit
idle due to lack of policy clarity.
[https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_6.html]

I believe that is exactly what the new text does; it creates clarity
regarding the return of addresses to ARIN and to the IANA, inline with
the general sentiment of the community ("don't strand space").

As one of the shepherds for ARIN-2011-6, I have tried to facilitate
this proposal meeting the general communities desires, and also what I
believe is the best stewardship of IPv4 number resources, based on the
original proposals intent. I am aware that this does not match the
exact desires of everyone, including you, and I want you to know that
I (and I believe the rest of the AC) has taken this into consideration
while discussing this (and all other) policy proposals.

With that in mind, I would like to encourage others that share Bill's
view to speak up now, while this proposal is in last call, so that we
may better understand your perspective. Of course, if you agree with
the current text, or disagree with it for other reasons, we would love
to hear that as well!

Cheers,
~Chris

>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.theIPv6experts.net
www.coisoc.org