[arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension]

[William Herrin]

Wes,

It seems to me there are only two deciding questions for this proposal.

1. Should ARIN go counter to the IETF's determination not to create an
ISP-local address space?

2. Is an ISP-local address space a better use of a /10 _for
ARIN-region registrants_ than giving that /10 exclusively to whichever
of the mega-ISPs happens to get to it first?

I understand your view that ARIN should not buck the IETF, but I
respectfully disagree. ARIN's responsibility is to the address users
in its region, not the IETF. Many address users in the ARIN region
have expressed an interest in any ISP-local address block for use with
technologies like NAT444. The IETF's advice is always welcome and
frequently relied upon, but with respect to addressing, the RIR's is
and should be the final word.

As far as I can tell, your response to the second question was "I
don't think anything bucking the IETF can be a good use, therefore it
can't be a better use than something else." If you made other points
to the effect that assigning that /10 to whichever single registrant
managed to get it is a better use than allocating it as ISP-local
address space usable by everybody, I missed those points amid the rest
of your argument. Would you mind summarizing them?

Thanks,
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