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

Tue Apr 19 16:03:39 EDT 2011

OK I get it.
So to echo Bill Herrin's comments, what is the purpose of the "Until"
portion of 2011-6? Whether it is part of this proposal or not, ('global
policy which clearly defines a mechanism for the re-allocation') it will or
it won't happen. What is the advantage to the community to push for global
policy on re-allocation, if many of us (me included) would ideally prefer
not to get into a return cycle?

Or how about.... "In the absence of " instead of  "Until"

RD

> > 4.1.9 Returned IPv4 Addresses
> >
> > Until a global policy which clearly defines a mechanism for the
> > re-allocation of IPv4 addresses returned to the IANA is adopted by all
> > five regions and implemented at the IANA which clearly defines a
> > mechanism for the re-allocation of IPv4 addresses returned to the IANA;
>
> 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.
>
> > all IPv4 addresses returned to, recovered, or revoked by ARIN will be
> > made available for allocation or assignment in the ARIN region as
> > quickly as practicable.
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:10:21 -0400
> From: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> To: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses - Last
>        Call
> Message-ID: <BANLkTi=2Bf9Wko9Fb-dSBGAqk0ktRqRdnw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:07 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> > > Draft Policy ARIN-2011-6
> > > Returned IPv4 Addresses
> > >
> > > Policy statement:
> > >
> > > 4.1.9 Returned IPv4 Addresses
> > >
> > > Until a global policy which clearly defines a mechanism for the
> > > re-allocation of IPv4 addresses returned to the IANA is adopted by all
> > > five regions and implemented at the IANA which clearly defines a
> > > mechanism for the re-allocation of IPv4 addresses returned to the IANA;
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> That's why I explicitly called out the change.
>
>
> > 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 don't see any attempt to sneak anything in here.  The sentiment in San
> Juan was pretty clear that the community did not support the policy
> proposal
> as written.  But rather than abandoning this proposal, or putting it back
> on
> the docket until the Philadelphia meeting, I (and others) felt it was
> important to advance the part of the proposal that did have consensus, due
> to the timeliness of the issue.
>
> It would also be entirely reasonable, IMO, to make another proposal to do
> something along the lines of this proposal's original intent, if you feel
> it
> would be likely to achieve consensus.  I don't think such a proposal would
> be good for the global Internet community, but it's certainly a valid topic
> for continued discussion in light of the continued efforts to come to
> consensus with other regions on global policy for the distribution of IPv4
> addresses from IANA to the RIRs.
>
> -Scott
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110419/f0f0b18a/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:14:05 -0400
> From: Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
> To: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses - Last
>        Call
> Message-ID: <BANLkTi=tFQCD7UP5oOC_fTi+Rf5sw1HeMw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I do not understand how 2011-6 contravenes ICP2.
>
>
> What don't you understand?
>
>
> > Earlier I noticed that there was a stated 1 month now replaced by "as
> soon
> > as practicable" ...the fact that no global policy currently exists, would
> it
> > not be better to go back to a stated time limit? If 1 month seems
> > unreasonable then why not (say) 3 months?
>
>
> I think that there's a better way to state it. "IPv4 addresses returned to
> ARIN will be immediately returned to the free pool for allocation or
> assignment while awaiting for the completion of any relative administrative
> procedure."
>
> The problem with leaving this open ended or with an assigned time is that
> if
> by some chance there is a global policy, the intent was to make sure that
> there was no confusion on the state of returned addresses. For example, if
> someone did by chance return a /8 and in 2.5 months a global policy after
> the return that policy was adopted, the status of the returned /8 would
> then
> be "open for interpretation". Stating a time frame in the manner that it
> has
> been stated degrades the predictability of the proposal.
>
>
> Best,
>
> -M<
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110419/7a602d7a/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:27:20 -0600
> From: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com>
> To: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses - Last
>        Call
> Message-ID: <BANLkTi=P_M50TdD2Q=jnc9bQ97KWzhrXhg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:32, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I do not understand how 2011-6 contravenes ICP2.
>
> I also do not see that connection.
>
> > Earlier I noticed that there was a stated 1 month now replaced by "as
> soon as practicable" ...the fact that no global policy currently exists,
> would it not be better to go back to a stated time limit? If 1 month seems
> unreasonable then why not (say) 3 months?
>
> During previous discussions surrounding this proposal, we seemed to
> gain consensus that different address blocks are in different
> circumstances and may require longer or shorter hold-down periods to
> be useful. We also discussed the fact that as there is less and less
> IPv4 address space available, it may become prudent to shorten the
> hold-downs to get space out to those who have immediate need,
> irregardless of any "dirtiness" of the block. The last thing discussed
> was the varying workload of staff and their ability to meet an
> arbitrary time limit. Overall it appears that the best way to deal
> with this varied and changing environment it to provide guidance to
> ARIN staff (as soon as practicable) and let them determine the exact
> hold-down period necessary. If you feel that this is not the best
> course of action - we (the AC and particularly the shepherds of this
> proposal) would love to get that feedback!
>
> HTH,
> ~Chris
>
>
> > RD
> >
> > --
> >
> > Rudi Daniel
> > danielcharles consulting
> > 1-784 498 8277
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:39:06 -0400
> From: Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
> To: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses - Last
>        Call
> Message-ID: <BANLkTimPTsiJkgEEKV_DjaczWL7upr_sNw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:32, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
>
> >
> > During previous discussions surrounding this proposal, we seemed to
> > gain consensus that different address blocks are in different
> > circumstances and may require longer or shorter hold-down periods to
> > be useful. We also discussed the fact that as there is less and less
> > IPv4 address space available, it may become prudent to shorten the
> > hold-downs to get space out to those who have immediate need,
> > irregardless of any "dirtiness" of the block. The last thing discussed
> > was the varying workload of staff and their ability to meet an
> > arbitrary time limit. Overall it appears that the best way to deal
> > with this varied and changing environment it to provide guidance to
> > ARIN staff (as soon as practicable) and let them determine the exact
> > hold-down period necessary. If you feel that this is not the best
> > course of action - we (the AC and particularly the shepherds of this
> > proposal) would love to get that feedback!
> >
>
>
> Which would make setting hold periods a negative. The intent was to
> insure that the addresses are returned to the free pool immediately
> and then the administrative requirements can be dealt with. It's a
> subtle yet important distinction which makes the policy predictable
> vs. open to interpretation.
>
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:57:03 -0600
> From: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com>
> To: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses - Last
>        Call
> Message-ID: <BANLkTi=bPZcdLM9k2CoqKwCPiMZeWax41w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 70, Issue 80
> *****************************************
>

-- 

Rudi Daniel
*danielcharles consulting<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>
**1-784 498 8277<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>
*
*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110419/5f35fb77/attachment.htm>