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

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Chris,

I can't speak for San Juan. The folks that commented on the PPML were
overwhelmingly in favor of returning NO addresses to IANA. Do I need
to go back and count to prove it? I'm guessing you didn't count before
making your assertion so you don't have the list handy.


On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>  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.

Hi Scott,

So you think there's wide support for "no return at least until
there's a ratified global policy for reallocation" while there's less
support for "no return until sometime later than that." So put "no
return until event X" forward to last call and restart discussion on
"no return between event X and event Y" if it's still desired.

I'll have to think about that.


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

That's where this gets messy. There is a pending ARIN-ratified global
policy for IANA to allocate addresses. The feel is that the other
regions won't ratify it, but they still could at pretty much any time.
Also, the way the text is written, it could serve as the "exception
that proves the rule." In other words, stating "no returns until X"
implicitly means "returns as normal after X" for some external
definition of normal. I'm personally uncomfortable with a policy that
says "returns after X" without laying out exactly what we're willing
to see returned after X.

-Bill



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004