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

Frank Bulk frnkblk at iname.com
Fri Apr 22 00:29:56 EDT 2011

I support this policy.  I would encourage additional language that makes it
clear where this address space is to be used, much as Benson has described.
Where service providers are using public IPv4 space already for shared
transition, they would be directed to use this /10 before asking for more
space anywhere else in their network (i.e. renumber).


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Benson Schliesser
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:27 PM
To: George, Wes E IV [NTK]; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4
Address Extension - Last Call

> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 13 April 2011 and decided to send
the following draft policy to last call:
>   ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension

I support this draft policy.  In an ideal world, this block would have come
from IANA - but given our current situation (IANA post-exhaustion) I think
it is reasonable for ARIN to take action.

On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:14 PM, George, Wes E IV [NTK] wrote:

> First, the current text does not reflect the valid concerns raised in
discussion in PR about a lack of enforcement.
> Supporters have been quick to say that this space is being reserved for a
narrow application and not a general application like an
> extension of RFC1918, and so if this is the case, then we should be
providing clear guidance to staff on this matter. 

My view is that "enforcement" isn't necessary, and indeed may not be
possible.  There are technical requirements for globally unique space,
including scenarios involving NAT, and we shouldn't ask ARIN staff to pick
and choose what's eligible for this Transition Space block.

But the NRPM, upon adopting this policy, should definitely include a
statement that it is not to be used like RFC 1918 space.  In other words, it
is meant for service providers to deploy on internal infrastructure etc -
end sites should not use this block, or they can expect to have problems.
Further, service providers that in-turn have upstream service providers
should exercise caution when using this block.

> Lastly, while it didn't come up in PR, we had also discussed on PPML the
idea of a different sort of sunset clause, where unless X
> SPs came forward and notified ARIN that they were using the space, it
would be returned to the free pool instead of being stranded
> and unused. Because there are many of us that remain unconvinced that this
will actually reduce the burn rate of IPv4 space, this
> would be a show of good faith on the part of the beneficiaries of this
policy that wouldn't fundamentally alter its intent. It
> does't have to be public, but at least it would provide a way to ensure
that we're not wasting space on this application. 

On one hand, I'm with you about not wasting space.  But on the other hand, I
don't think that: a) we will care about getting this block back, at the
future point in time when it is no longer useful; and b) we can be certain
that this block is not being used, after it's been set aside.

Personally, I think we should just consider this block a "gift" to the
Internet.  We could perhaps suggest that other RIRs, and maybe the IETF,
include this block in their documentation - so that it's used by everybody,
for the maximum global benefit, etc.


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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list