[arin-ppml] Proposal 2011-6
farmer at umn.edu
Thu Apr 7 20:12:41 EDT 2011
I've been thinking about this one for while; First nothing should be
returned to IANA unless there is a functioning global policy to
redistribute it to the RIRs. Nothing should be returned to just sit in
limbo at IANA. But that global policy itself another discussion, which
is returning to an email thread near you, under the title of Proposal
Then, the issue is to strike a balance between two competing
obligations, in a time of scarcity, an obligation to the regional (ARIN)
community and an obligation to the global Internet as a whole. Overall
at a high level, I believe we should balance this by keeping 50% and
returning 50% of recovered IPv4 assets to a pool for redistribution by
IANA to the RIRs on a needs basis.
For the sake of discussion, assume there will be more or less equal
demand by the RIRs on an IANA pool; That provides a split of 60% to ARIN
and 10% to each of the other 4 RIRs. Actual distribution will probably
vary some, but probably asymptotically approach that distribution. Is
that a fair distribution? I don't know! But, it possess the attributes
of making no one completely happy, but providing everyone something. I
suppose you could pick a different initial split between what ARIN keeps
and returns, but 50-50 has a nice ring to it. An equal obligation to
the regional (ARIN) community and the global Internet as a whole.
Now taking it down another level; I believe this should be any recovered
assets legacy or otherwise. For technical reasons nothing smaller than
a /24 should be returned, but from a policy perspective I could be
convinced to set that to the equilivant of someplace between a /18 and a
/22. Is the fragmentation created by pushing one or two /24s around
between the RIRs really worth the effort? Is it really going to make
that much difference? But if we get some number of /16s back, maybe 20
or more /24s back, it is probably fair to share some of that with the
After that I believe we leave it to the staff of the RIRs and IANA to
make the best of a crummy situation.
I guess that is a very long way of saying I oppose this policy as written.
On 4/7/11 17:35 CDT, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> If I were to draw a line I think it would be to not return anything less
> than a complete and contiguous /8 . If I understand correctly that is
> the least they will allocate anyway.
> To restate my point though, I really do not think there is an issue.
> When we get to the point that ARIN has addresses in excess of it’s needs
> I have the utmost faith that the ARIN community will act in the best
> interests of the global community. In the final examination that will
> also be what is best for the local community.
> *From:*Alexander, Daniel [mailto:Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 07, 2011 5:16 PM
> *To:* Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal 2011-6
> Hey Kevin,
> Do you have any thoughts on where a line could be drawn in the future
> between what would be retained and what would be returned? Or when?
> If the policy is left to address all this later, the wording does send a
> message to other regions.
> I'm really not trying to take sides on this, but want to make sure we
> think this all the way through.
> *From: *Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com <mailto:kkargel at polartel.com>>
> *Date: *Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:41:34 -0500
> *To: *"arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>"
> <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
> *Subject: *Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal 2011-6
> I <http://www.thinkpolar.com/> would suggest this is a case of not
> crossing ones bridges before one comes to them.
> We can what-if ourselves to death and create mountains of unnecessary
> policy. The ARIN community is very globally minded and I am sure that
> if/when these situations arise the community willstep up in a timely
> manner to deal with them. Let’s not waste time creating solutions to
> problems that do not exist.
> *From:*arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Alexander, Daniel
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 07, 2011 4:29 PM
> *To:* arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal 2011-6
> It is understandable that people would want IPv4 resources to stay in
> the region when they are scarce. But what happens when the ARIN region
> starts to reach parity with IPv6 services? IPv4 resources will start to
> lose their urgency in this region, but will still be needed in others.
> What happens if the DoD were to return several /8's to ARIN? Is it in
> the best interest of the global Internet community that the ARIN region
> not return resources? Does anyone consider this hoarding? If another
> region were to exhibit similar behavior,this region would be quite vocal
> in opposition.
> Does the current wording implement a double standard?
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
More information about the ARIN-PPML