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

[Rodgers Moore]

The only case I can think of is NNI scenarios.  I must use public space for my MPLS NNI's because we connect to multiple carriers.  I use part of my internal allocation for infrastructure.  It seems reasonable that a large provider might need to request space just for this purpose and it might be a different business unit than that running the Internet side of things.

Another thought just hit me.  How does Internet2 handle IP allocations?  They aren't running off of ARIN space are they?  If so, then that would be another case.

Rodgers Moore, CCIE# 8153

-----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 11:38 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.