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

[Joel Jaeggli]

On 4/20/11 9:58 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> Hi, Cathy.
> 
> On Apr 20, 2011, at 9:44 AM, cja at daydream.com wrote:
> 
>> I too oppose this proposal.  Let's be really clear here.  The more
>> appropriate venue is/was the IETF and the IETF turned it down.  It
>> was also brought up in the APNIC region and that region also turned
>> it down.
> 
> My understanding is that the IETF didn't think they were the
> appropriate venue, and that this was a policy question more
> appropriate for the RIR community.  But, I confess: I didn't
> participate closely in that discussion.  Is there something that we
> can reference (e.g. an archive or document) to understand this
> decision?

not exactly:

12.5 Call the question: Shared IPv4 Prefix for Carrier Grade NAT deployments

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/minutes/v6ops.txt

was one place it was discussed...

another was

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/minutes/opsawg.txt

previously it had a pass at the IESG

I don't have the minutes associated with that, the area director said
the following:

Dan Romanescu -  IESG has a draft on the table, pending a couple
discusses, that says don’t do this, straw poll in IESG.  Soon to be an
RFC.  The IESG would object to this.

There is what I would characterize as hostility in some camps mine
included to creating new private scope address ranges out of existing
public scope ranges.



> Cheers, -Benson
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 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.
>