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

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 25, 2011, at 5:46 AM, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wherrin at gmail.com [mailto:wherrin at gmail.com] On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 3:10 AM
> To: Scott Leibrand
> Cc: George, Wes E [NTK]; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - Last Call
> 
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ok.  So it sounds like you'd like to modify ARIN-2011-5 to add 
>> language stating that, for purposes of NAT pools and internal 
>> management, globally unique addressing would no longer be justified 
>> unless there was a compelling technical reason this /10 couldn't be 
>> used instead?
>> 
>> Do you have any language suggestions?  (If not, I and probably a 
>> number of others would be happy to help draft something if people feel 
>> it's needed...)
> 
> "A requirement for IPv4 addresses used solely inside a single autonomous system shall not qualify an organization to receive or
> retain an IPv4 address assignment or allocation."
> 
> [WEG] 
> I'd prefer something a bit more targeted. There's a lot of openings for interpretation in "used solely inside a single autonomous
> system" and it would require its own set of definitions for staff guidance - for example, are router interfaces considered part of
> this if they aren't on ASBRs? 
> How do we define "internal management" in the context of this policy?
> I don't have an idea of how to cover the "compelling technical reason" exception, and I'm not sure it's necessary. Typically
> compelling technical reasons generate new policy (see also 6rd). I'm really looking for something that covers exactly what is said
> in 2011-5 - " to be shared by Service Providers for internal use for IPv4 address extension deployments ... Examples of such needs
> include: IPv4
> addresses between home gateways and NAT444 translators."
> My recommended text: IPv4 addresses used behind a NAT (inside pool) cannot be used for justification of new resources nor counted
> towards utilization calculations for existing resources. NRPM 4.10.x (Shared Transition Space) defines a specific non-unique block
> to  be shared among multiple networks for this purpose.

I like this phrasing better than that offered by Mr. Herrin.

I think it more accurately reflects the policy intent.

Owen