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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 23, 2011, at 8:38 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> 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?
> 
I don't believe so, but, if you do, feel free to submit a policy proposal.
It's one I think worthy of community discussion even though I would
not support it.

> 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?
> 
Yes... Several situations I can think of.

I won't go into specifics in public, but, if you want to have a
conversation in PR, pull me aside.

Owen

> 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