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

[Owen DeLong]

I would support change number 1.

I would argue that change number 2 is unnecessary and potentially harmful.
Why should 9 ISPs who have made very large use of this space suddenly have
it revoked simply because they are the last 9 to deprecate its use?

Owen

On Feb 24, 2011, at 8:27 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> I think that isn't the argument. I think the argument is we have one or more mega-ISPs wanting
>> this policy to pass, but if it does not, will be forced to apply for resources for [NAT444].
>> Current policy allows for them to number the necessary hosts accordingly, so, if this policy
>> does not pass, there is nothing at all that would prevent them from each obtaining large
>> blocks of addresses for this purpose. I don't know if any one of them could justify a /10
>> individually, but, I am quite certain that they can collectively easily exceed a /10. I'd estimate
>> that they can probably come close to a /7, collectively.
> 
> s/forced/choose/
> 
> They -could- choose to use RFC1918 addresses. They won't for all the
> reasons you've said. But they could.
> 
> Otherwise, agree with everything above.
> 
> 
> So, Wes, Owen: Let's put our money where our mouths are so to speak.
> If these addresses won't be wasted, let's require the policy to prove
> it. Adjust the policy so that:
> 
> 1) Within 6 months of ratification at least 10 ARIN allocation holders
> must register with ARIN an intent to use addresses within the /10 in
> their network within 24 months. If fewer than 10 register that intent
> then the policy is void and the /10 is returned to the ARIN pool.
> 
> 2) After the first 24 months and every 24 months thereafter ARIN must
> review the use of the /10 and make a positive determination that at
> least 10 ARIN allocation holders are actually using it. If fewer than
> 10 are using it and ARIN does not otherwise have at least a
> /8-equivalent available for allocation (i.e. IPv4 isn't yet on the
> decline), the whole pool is recycled into ARIN's free pool with a 12
> month delay for the 9 or fewer folks using it to renumber.
> 
> 
> Owen, if we can't find 10 ISPs who are willing to step up and say
> they'll use these addresses then Wes will have made his point: this
> won't be a good use of a /10. Can you accept that result?
> 
> Wes, if a non-trivial number of ISPs actually use the addresses in
> parallel then plainly this was a better use than assigning the
> addresses to ISPs individually. Can you accept that result?
> 
> 
> I hear a lot of ideology in this debate. Are either/both of you
> willing to measure and follow the data instead?
> 
> 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