[arin-ppml] End non-public IPv4 assignments?

[Frank Bulk]

Bill:

I'm not sure I follow you here.  Can you explain why you are exploring the
ending of assigning non-public IPv4 assignments?  Is it to force eyeball
network operators to scrape out address space from somewhere else in order
to implement NAT444?

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 10:38 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] End non-public IPv4 assignments?

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>I support the idea of amending the proposal to prohibit ARIN
>from granting requests for other space for this aspect of LSN
>implementation.

Hi Owen,

This raises a question that I find interesting. ARIN still allows IPv4
address assignments for individual registrant networks which are not
routed on the public Internet. The registrant has to supply some kind
of vaguely defined technical justification for it and I gather that's
not easy but it remains possible. Is it time to bring that era to a
close? Grandfather in the folks who've justified non-connected
assignments in the past but make no new ones regardless of
justification?

Let me reverse the question: in light of the situation on the ground
today, is there anything you would view as a reasonable justification
for an IPv4 allocation or assignment to a single entity which will not
be routed on the public Internet? What?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


>
>>
>> This policy can't have a form which reduces my concerns of the eyeball
networks regaining large chunks of space while the content providers will
continue to dwindle. Unfortunately, it's too late in the game to fix
policies to favor protecting content networks (ie, eyeballs don't have to
utilize NAT444 if they don't want to and can request address space until we
are out, at which time they can convert, but the content providers do not
have any new tools to deal with migration on their side). Trying to
implement policy to deal with this unbalanced set of tools at this point
would only cause a fast rush to ARIN by eyeball networks prior to policy
ratification and defeat the purpose. As such, there will be a time that
content providers cannot offer IPv4, and their competitors (especially
eyeball networks who sideline content) will have IPv4. We will have
effectively killed the little guy.
>>
> I'm not sure that dwindling addresses for CPs is a bad thing. The needs of
CPs should dwindle as end users gain more access to IPv6.
> CPs, as you have pointed out, could be the hardest group to motivate to
IPv6.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
_______________________________________________
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.