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

George, Wes E [NTK] Wesley.E.George at sprint.com
Wed Apr 20 17:05:50 EDT 2011


At the risk of being pedantic, I'm going to beg to differ. OPSAWG did not ask about formal WG adoption of the draft, only a general
question about whether people supported the draft, since it was also to be discussed in v6ops. 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/minutes/opsawg.txt
"The proposal is controversial. The question is to be called in v6ops Friday."
" Straw poll: more people in the room supported the draft than didn't,
perhaps 2:1. About half the room expressed an opinion."

Then, in V6ops:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/minutes/v6ops.txt
" Fred:  can we call the question?  Clear consensus, actually two, in
opposition.   Not an IETF consensus
Chris: in ops, about 2 to 1 for, with strong objections."

Chairs
Request for hum showing support for (first) or against (second) this
proposal were to to arrive as a draft?
Not strong support for either position. given discussion so far would
conclude that there is definitely no consensus.
topic closed


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Donley [mailto:C.Donley at cablelabs.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:55 PM
To: George, Wes E [NTK]; Chris Grundemann; cja at daydream.com
Cc: cja at daydream.com; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - Last Call

The draft actually *DID* get wg approval in OPSAWG in Beijing.  However, our only hope of adoption in advance of IANA exhaustion was
to have the draft proceed as an AD-sponsored draft, and we were told to present in v6ops, as well.  We did not have enough support
in v6ops for AD sponsorship (v6ops minutes show no consensus on the draft, either in favor or opposed), so we let the draft idle, as
we were out of time.  I still believe that this draft policy will result in a more efficient allocation of the remaining IPv4
address space than individual allocations for NAT444 space, and while it would be nice if we were able to get IANA to allocate space
for the entire world, there is sufficient justification among North American ISPs that it makes sense for ARIN to reserve the
addresses.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of George, Wes E [NTK]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:01 PM
To: Chris Grundemann; cja at daydream.com
Cc: cja at daydream.com; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - Last Call

As I remember it, the draft was vigorously discussed at IETF79 in Beijing and on the list for a while after that, but there wasn't
even a call for WG adoption because there was so little consensus on moving it forward. if it had WG approval, it would have been
reissued with the WG name in the title (it was being discussed in OPSAWG).  It died well before IANA exhaustion. The expiration date
is only a function of when the draft was written, because all drafts expire after 6 months.

Wes
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris Grundemann
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:43 PM
To: cja at daydream.com
Cc: cja at daydream.com; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - Last Call

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:16, cja at daydream.com <packetgrrl at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am looking around to see if I can find the discussion of this 
> internet draft.  I do see that it expired and was removed.

For clarity; this went to the IETF in two rounds, the first was in a draft that asked for a /8 - that's the one that has expired.
The second attempt asked for a /10
(draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request) and that draft actually gained working group approval but essentially ran out of time
(IANA exhausted). It does not expire until May 15, 2011 but since there is no space left at the IANA, my understanding is that
discussion has stopped.

~Chris

> -----CJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



--
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.theIPv6experts.net
www.coisoc.org
_______________________________________________
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.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6753 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110420/8021a2f7/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list