[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - Last Call
frnkblk at iname.com
Tue Apr 26 23:29:41 EDT 2011
Our upstream provider/pseudo-LIR is considering to provide its customers CGN
services, and there are some customers with their own unique public ASes. I
think saying "intra-AS" is not as helpful. I would prefer to strike that
that and just focus on any kind of CGN-like activity.
Having this language in a separate policy is fine.
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 8:34 AM
To: George, Wes E [NTK]
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4
Address Extension - Last Call
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:46 AM, George, Wes E [NTK]
<Wesley.E.George at sprint.com> wrote:
>> "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."
> for example, are router interfaces considered part of
> this if they aren't on ASBRs?
Do they generate packets using that address which transit other ASes
still using that address? Where yes they would seem to qualify and
where no they wouldn't. I understand that divide to be outside-facing
and potentially outside-facing interfaces versus customer-facing
> How do we define "internal management" in the
> context of this policy?
We don't. That's the point of wording it this way. Packets using a
given address either routinely leave your AS or they don't. If they
don't, for whatever reason, then they're not included in the count
that justifies global unicast addresses.
> I don't have an idea of how to cover the "compelling
>technical reason" exception, and I'm not sure it's
With the (small) percentage of addresses between what you can be
allocated and what you have to justify. Or with IPv6 where no such
restrictions are levied.
> 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.
That explicitly targets a particular technology rather than a class of
use. That could be reasonable but beware that resolving fairness
issues with restrictions on specific technologies can be much harder
than addressing them for class of use. We could spend years
enumerating and arguing about all the specific technologies that
should no longer qualify for IPv4 addresses.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
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