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

Tue Apr 19 16:16:44 EDT 2011

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> 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"
>

I think "In the absence of" describes our intent well, and would be happy to
make that substitution.

Thanks,
Scott

> 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>
> *
> *
> *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110419/1c333e98/attachment.htm>