[arin-ppml] FW: Proposal: Clarification of draft policy 2009-3 (ARIN-prop-135)

cja@daydream.com packetgrrl at gmail.com
Fri Feb 18 17:59:57 EST 2011


I think what the ARIN staff was saying was  not that prop 131 conflicts with
the "mandatory returns" in 2009-3 because there are no mandatory returns in
2009-3 but 131 makes it so there are no blocks to be voluntarily returned in

2009-3 specifically states, "Each RIR through their respective chosen
policies and strategies may
recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and
designate any such space for return to the IANA. Each RIR shall at
quarterly intervals return any such designated address space to the IANA
in aggregated blocks of /24 or larger, for inclusion in the recovered
IPv4 pool."

This is not mandatory return.  131 specifically says that ARIN will make
recovered legacy space available for distribution within the ARIN region.
 If it passes then it conflicts with 2009-3 because there would be no blocks
that could be designated for return to IANA.

131 also conflicts with current ARIN operational practice.  That practice
has been that ARIN does give back any /8s that it recovers or that are
returned.   This is not mandated this is just operational practice as far as
I know.

I hope this helps.


On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:46 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com>
> wrote:
> > IMHO a policy that *allows* return of blocks to IANA upon
> > request by IANA would be ok.  I am not in favor of policy
> > that *requires* return of blocks whether IANA wants them or not.
> Hi Kevin,
> That matches my understanding of the already-board-approved draft
> policy 2009-3. However, when evaluating proposal 131, ARIN staff
> offered a radically different interpretation of 2009-3. Their
> interpretation is that an ARIN policy which prevents the return of
> legacy addresses to IANA (prop 131 version 3) conflicts with the
> mandatory returns to IANA in draft policy 2009-3.
> Hence proposal 135 which, in my opinion, does not alter 2009-3 in any
> way. It merely clarifies the intended interpretation of 2009-3's
> language.
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110218/dbed5e67/attachment.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list