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

[David Farmer]

On 2/24/11 10:27 CST, William Herrin wrote:
...
> 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.

While in general I currently support this proposal, even though I would 
rather not.  I do think it is completely reasonable to ask some 
non-trivial number of service providers to come forward and announce 
they will use this block if allocated by ARIN.  You can argue about the 
over-all merits and stewardship of this proposal, but without a 
reasonable number of service providers announcing they would use this 
block it would be impossible to defend the stewardship of this proposal 
in my opinion.

So, if you are a service provider that would use this block if this 
proposal succeeds, please speak up and let us know soon, by the end of 
the San Juan meeting at the latest.

> 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.

It is about as practical to withdraw this allocation once it has been 
made, as it is to try to put toothpaste back into a tube.  If service 
providers are going to deploy using an allocated block they need 
certainty that it is safe to do so, a withdrawal clause would probably 
not provide sufficient certainty.  Who would want it to be allocated to 
this block after it was withdrawn, if any service providers actually 
deploy using this block? You would almost be assured of issues with any 
providers that have deployed using this block, therefore making it more 
or less useless for normal Internet use.

> 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?

+1

I agree we need service providers to step up and say they will use it, 
but before we allocate it.  I think this is the bare minimum that the 
rest of the community should expect before allocating this block.

> 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?

+1

I agree.

> I hear a lot of ideology in this debate. Are either/both of you
> willing to measure and follow the data instead?

+1

If no one says they will use it then it doesn't matter, it is not good 
stewardship!

If providers use it, then it is probably as good of stewardship as we 
can expect in this situation.  Better stewardship would have been to 
deploy dual-stack IPv6 by now, but that hasn't happened.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================