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

[Jack Bates]

On 1/22/2011 1:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
> Since this would be a block that noone in their right mind would accept a route for from any of their peers, what kind of abuse are you expecting it to be open to? Are you saying that there is significant abuse of RFC-1918 addresses today?
>

I'm saying that as it stands, they could request space from ARIN for 
internal LSN space and then turn around and use the /10, which would be 
false justification, but there isn't a way for us to defend against it 
without the policy limiting LSN justifications. It's important to note 
that this limitation only would stop people from justifying IPv4 
utilization on the inside of their LSN implementation; compensated with 
us giving a /10 to the world for that specific purpose.  I think you 
gathered this on my other email.

> I support the idea of amending the proposal to prohibit ARIN from granting requests for other space for this aspect of LSN implementation.
>


Jack