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

[David Farmer]

On 1/21/11 08:30 CST, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
>> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 5:18 AM
>>
>> That's absurd. If any registry reserves a /10, I'm sure all the
>> registries will
>> encourage their members to use that /10. To the best of my knowledge,
>> there are no plans to submit this proposal to any other registries (and
>> I talked to the proposal author about it the day before yesterday in
>> person).
>
> [WES] *IF* we consider this policy, it should be a global policy in order to
> remove all doubt that this is the intent. I don't like the idea of ARIN
> reserving a block and *hoping* that folks from other regions will know about
> it and use it.

If ARIN does this (again this is a BIG IF), I agree how we do it matters 
a lot.

However, if we do it as a Global Policy, it is my understanding that 
ARIN and the other RIRs, as the NRO of ICANN would essentially be 
directing IANA to do it, instead of the IETF directing IANA to do it. 
We ARIN wouldn't be doing it per se. In some ways that is an interesting 
idea, but means that all the RIRs have to pass the Global Policy and be 
reviewed by the NRO AC and the ICANN board before it could happen, which 
may be to late from a practical perspective.

There is the notion of a globally coordinated policy where the other 
RIRs could pas a policy that is compatible with ARIN's policy, probably 
simply recognizing the allocation ARIN make.

Or maybe another option is for ARIN (not sure who the individuals should 
be) to submit an Informational RFC identifying the allocation it makes 
for this purpose, similar to RFC 3849 "IPv6 Address Prefix Reserved for 
Documentation", that was more or less lead by APNIC I believe.  I didn't 
follow that process at the time so maybe this situation isn't analogous 
at all, I just don't know.

Also a procedural question, is it necessary for this kind of policy to 
go into the NRPM? Basically the policy just directing ARIN staff to make 
a special allocation that would be document by Whois, wouldn't that be 
sufficient documentation?  Especially, if we further document it with a 
Informational RFC submitted to the IETF or a web page similar to what 
APNIC has for the IPv6 Documentation prefix.

http://www.apnic.net/info/faq/ipv6-documentation-prefix-faq.html

Thanks.

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