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

Joe Maimon jmaimon at chl.com
Wed Feb 23 22:07:47 EST 2011

George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
> -----Original Message-----

> [WEG]  No, I don' t think that it is, even when you phrase it like that.
> * I reject the argument that we have one or more "mega-ISPs" waiting for this policy to die so that
> they can make that final large allocation request (or to live so that they don't have to).

Fully agree.

Any entity that wants this /10 for their own projected use wants it for 
when there is no ARIN /10 available to anyone. Until that point they 
will continue to make and justify requests just like always. This draft 
has zero conservation effect. I dont support it.

On the contrary, it is throwing a quarter of the last IANA allocation 
away and it will never be coming back, ever. I should hope much better 
uses for it could be found if carving that size chunk off is back on the 

How about guaranteeing new entrants? Or those with only a thimbleful 
compared to those with buckets? Options for these folks will be a whole 
lot more limited. I submit that it is a much larger problem for these 
folks to deploy LSN and whatever else will continue to be required until 
it truly is the year of IPv6.

Yes, let us sit idly by while a tier-1 monopoly on identifiers forms.

Aside from that, I would support a proposal that reserves a /10 or 
larger for future general unicast uses, including a possible shared 
pool, to be determined only after ARIN exhausts. I would consider that 
to be a much wiser course of action.

> * The Policy as written does not make inside NAT pool addresses an invalid use of current or
> newly-allocated space

"Invalid use" season open already? Plenty of targets in that direction 
if we want to go there. I dont.

> CGN applied to their existing deployment
> would allow them to reclaim addresses by sharing them among more than one customer, freeing
> addresses to be used as an internal NAT pool.

If CGN actually solves the problem well enough to be in real use for new 
users, what leads you to believe that only there it will be used?

I dont. I expect it will be used to downgrade a significant portion of 
users to a new lower tier service and to monetize the resulting 
available resources. All in the name of equality.

They will even have enough addresses on hand at that point to easily 
solve the problems of any annoying or troublesome pesky users. For a few 
dollars more MRC naturally.

Let these now rich in resources create their own pool from the glut they 
will then have available. Betcha there is another less publicized flag 
day coming.

How about give something back to the rest of us and at least make an 
attempt to rehabilitate E. Past procrastination is not a legitimate 
justification for its continuance.

I wonder what is considered to be in the better interests of subscriber 
providers, to have users noticing that their wan address is a well known 
non-unique/cgn address or to muddy the waters a bit?

That may have something to do with the apparent distaste for RFC1918, 
perhaps even more so than a problem that appears to be blown well out of 
proportion, even accepting on its face the position that it is a problem 
that the community as a whole should be addressing. I dont.

I actually have a small teeny weeny suggestion to these providers.

Modify your DHCP servers so that DHCP clients that consistently refuse 
your addresses are offered from a different scope that may be more 
acceptable to them. Problem solved. There is no CPE that uses ranges 
from 10/8 172.16/12 and 192.168/16  simultaneously by default.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list