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

[Chris Grundemann]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:58, Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net> wrote:
>
> I'm not saying penalize. I'm saying that we either don't support the /10 and
> make the eyeballs retask their existing IPv4 address space (which will still
> free up some of their address space, just not as much as if we gave them the
> /10), or the policy must MANDATE that all NAT444 justifications must utilize
> the /10. This differs from RFC-1918, in that it specifically tasks the /10
> to a purpose and mandates that it be used for said purpose when people
> justify for IPv4 space.
>
> The policy should not be wide open with an optional /10 which will be tasked
> with serving a purpose, but people can just ignore that purpose as well.
> This would leave a new opening for abuse.

Thanks for clarifying Jack, I think I now understand your suggestion.
Basically add a sentence or two stating that internal LSN addressing
is not a valid justification of need for new IPv4 requests. I believe
that it's worth considering including that - if it were included,
would you support the proposal?

~Chris

>
> Jack
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>

-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.theIPv6experts.net
www.coisoc.org