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

[Frank Bulk - iName.com]

If current policy allows for IPv4 requests to be fulfilled based on the need
for numbering a CGN network, I would be willing to support an amendment to
prop-127 that would nullify this justification, but that's about as far as I
think we can go.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ARIN
mandates the use of specific type of addressing within a member's operation;
the closest concept I could find is micro-allocations.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates at brightok.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 1:59 PM
To: frnkblk at iname.com
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4
Address Extension

On 1/22/2011 1:20 PM, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
>> or the policy must MANDATE that all NAT444 justifications
>> >  must utilize the /10
> I'm not sure if CGN deployment is justification for a request.  Can
someone
> in the know comment on that?
>
> Even if it is justification, that restriction might be considered
> overreaching by the community.
I don't consider it to be overreaching. If we mandated CGN deployments,
that would be overreaching. However, I'm not suggesting that we state
you must utilize CGN and the /10. I'm suggesting that we mandate use of
the /10 when you have deployed CGN for justifications purposes.


Jack