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

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 25, 2011, at 8:52 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> 
> 
> Chris Grundemann wrote:
> 
>> So, what is the cost? We lose one /10 that could have been assigned or
>> allocated as unique space for a handful of orgs (or potentially one
>> large one). But we gain a shared space that can be used by all ISPs
>> with need for it, the world over. The proposal appears to provide the
>> greatest good.
> 
> To who? Are they or are they not going to refrain from further justified requests so long as the resources are available to do so?
> 
> Either way the space is gone (largely to the same folk). This way it is gone forever.
> 
> If this cost (a quarter of the last IANA allocation to ARIN) was high enough to dissuade the community from reserving it for new entrants who have no other recourse but to beg borrow or steal addresses from the likely to form address cartel, I fail to see how it is now low enough to be used for marginal aid and comfort to the likely members of that very same cartel, who do have plenty of recourse.
> 
> I will reiterate just the one option (of many) that I havent seen much discussion about, that of adding some intelligence into their dynamic provisioning systems.
> 
> Say for example a DHCP server. A client that repeatedly refuses an address from Scope A is offered one from Scope B. And then Scope C. And then Scope D. Perhaps Scope Z is actually global unique addresses.
> 
> Presumably the client would be rejecting the address because it cannot install it in its routing table due to conflicts. Or because the end user is frustratingly rebooting it repeatedly.
> 
> Either way a large portion of the problem (its actual size a matter of opinion) is solved, from the provider point of view. Patent and royalty free. Very generous of me.
> 
You're requiring changes to both the CPE and the provisioning system that are impractical in the circumstance.

Owen