[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension

[David Farmer]

On 1/20/11 18:17 CST, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> On 1/20/11 7:00 PM, "David Farmer"<farmer at umn.edu>  wrote:
>
> [ clip ]
>
>> Why?  This close to run-out I find it very hard to justify allocating 4
>> million virgin IPv4 addresses from a fresh IANA allocation to ARIN for
>> this purpose.   However, recycling graciously returned IPv4 address for
>> this purpose would be a little less distasteful in my opinion.
>> Furthermore, ARIN has been and probably will be the only RIR that will
>> see any sizable returned of Legacy address space; This fact provides a
>> uniquely justified nexus for ARIN to consider this proposal instead of
>> the other RIRs and even though the IETF failed to come to a consensus on
>> the issue.
>
> [ .. ]
>
>> Therefore, I would like to see a recommendation to use 45.192.0.0/10 or
>> another returned Legacy block added to the rationale of this proposal.
>
>
> You've got it sort-of backwards. The IANA blocks are polluted and get worse
> as they wind down. Being listed in bogons is not a guarantee of pristine
> condition. 45/8 is probably better than anything that is left and equal to
> whatever else is out there.

OK, the virgins aren't so clean and white, I was more think of this from 
a policy prescriptive more than from how much junk and background 
radiation there is from the blocks in question.  However, maybe going 
with the least useful block might be the better option.

It was the policy nexus that ARIN receiving most of the returned Legacy 
space that got me thinking.  Also, since people we talking about 
squatting on Legacy space, I thought maybe as a community we could agree 
which legacy space to squat on.

> There is also global policy on deck that is attempting to deal with the
> returned legacy address space issue, there's another effort underway now to
> supplant and possibly reconcile that same global proposal and finally, there
> is likely to be a regional policy directing ARIN as to how to handle legacy
> address space in the absence of global policy.

I'd be pleasantly surprised to hear of progress, but unfortunately I'm 
not all that optimistic.

> I do think that whatever is selected should be encoded in the proposal, but
> I think it's premature at this point.

I agree specifying something as specific as a particular block probably 
isn't right way, especially in the policy text itself.  But, maybe 
providing some suggestions in the rationale like "should allocate from a 
returned Legacy address space" or "should allocate the least useful 
blocks available" wouldn't be completely out of line either.  So I 
agree, calling out 45.192.0.0/10 is probably way to specific.

-- 
===============================================
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
===============================================