[arin-ppml] [Fwd: ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses - revised ver. 3] revised ver. 4

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:53 AM, John Curran wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 2011, at 2:40 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you clarify that? Which global proposal and what was the conflict?
>>
>> As the ARIN Board has already adopted ARIN-2009-3, we need to make
>> sure that 2009-3 (if/when made global) will not conflict.  We can do
>> that by including in pp 131 that no legacy space shall be designated
>> for return to IANA (if that is the intent of the policy proposal).
>>
>> This avoids having 2009-3 somehow become active and we having a conflict
>> in adopted policy in NRPM, and having to establish precedence of various
>> sections, etc.
>>
> 2009-3 provided that ARIN could return legacy space according to policies
> adopted in the ARIN region. Since no such policies exist I don't see a
> conflict between this policy and 2009-3. I do see a conflict between this
> policy and traditional operational practice, but, I would say that policy
> should generally override operational practice if a conflict arises between
> them.

I'm mystified as well. 2009-3 said that ARIN was not authorized to
return space to IANA under 2009-3 absent further ARIN-local policy
specifying the criteria under which they would be authorized. That
couldn't have been clearer. Prop 131 is such an ARIN-local policy, and
it specifically excludes returning recovered legacy addresses.

Where's the conflict?

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004