[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - Last Call
khelms at zcorum.com
Fri Apr 22 05:59:41 EDT 2011
I support this proposal. I'd prefer we mark the /10 reserved and
continue to fine tune the language but I'd rather adopt it as is than
wait until there isn't any space to reserve but we have agreeable language.
On 4/21/2011 11:25 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Scott Leibrand<scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 2011, at 2:25 PM, "George, Wes E IV [NTK]"
>> <Wesley.E.George at sprint.com> wrote:
>> Given the state of the various free pools, I'm pretty sure that we
>> won't have a /10 free if this proposal waits until Philadelphia.
>> Given that possibility, how do you think we should proceed? I'm
>> leaning towards adopting this proposal now, and then following it up
>> with another proposal to require that service providers use this (or
>> RFC1918) space when appropriate and technically feasible, rather than
> I support adopting this proposal now, while it is still possible to
> allocate the /10.
> Even in the absence of policy to "use this (or RFC1918 space) when appropriate
> and technically feasible".
> That will begin to happen with the /10 reserved, due to mathematical contraints
> applying to ISPs that need IP addresses, especially when the free pool becomes
> exhausted; using RFC1918 or /10 space becomes a more reliably,
> inexpensively available option than trying to find sources of
> sufficient global unique
> IPv4 addresses available by 8.3 transfer.
More information about the ARIN-PPML