[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - Last Call

[Scott Helms]

I support this proposal.  I'd prefer we mark the /10 reserved and
continue to fine tune the language but I'd rather adopt it as is than
wait until there isn't any space to reserve but we have agreeable language.

On 4/21/2011 11:25 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>  On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Scott Leibrand<scottleibrand at gmail.com>   wrote:
>>  On Apr 19, 2011, at 2:25 PM, "George, Wes E IV [NTK]"
>>  <Wesley.E.George at sprint.com>   wrote:
>>  Given the state of the various free pools, I'm pretty sure that we
>>  won't have a /10 free if this proposal waits until Philadelphia.
>>  Given that possibility, how do you think we should proceed?  I'm
>>  leaning towards adopting this proposal now, and then following it up
>>  with another proposal to require that service providers use this (or
>>  RFC1918) space when appropriate and technically feasible, rather than
>  I support adopting this proposal now,  while it is still possible to
>  allocate the /10.
>  Even in the absence of policy to  "use this (or RFC1918 space) when appropriate
>  and technically feasible".
>
>  That will begin to happen with the /10 reserved,  due to mathematical contraints
>  applying to ISPs that need IP addresses, especially when the free pool becomes
>  exhausted; using RFC1918 or /10 space becomes a more reliably,
>  inexpensively  available option  than trying to find sources of
>  sufficient global unique
>  IPv4 addresses available by 8.3 transfer.
>
>