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

[Lee Howard]

> I'm of the opinion that this was a bad idea at the IETF and it's  a bad idea 
>here to. 
>
> I made a suggestion as to how a opertor consortia or even an  individual entity 
>could 
>
> cough up the space necessary to make it work 

I don't see what part of the NRPM would allow an entity to justify an allocation 

that way.  Can ISP A set aside a /10 for common use for LSN, and still get 
address
space from ARIN?  If it's possible, then perhaps a policy proposal isn't needed, 
but 

I need to know what policy meets the need.  

> and I'm  convinced that if the need 
> for it were that dire we'd see a proposal altering  the transfer rules such 
>that a new 
>
> entity could be created without penalty, 

If that new entity could justify the address space, then creating it would not 
be the
problem.  But ARIN won't allow a transfer unless the space can be justified, and 
I
don't see where current rules allow for it.  Again, if the rules do allow for 
it, maybe
the proposal isn't needed.

> rather asking for an assignment by fiat that 
> ultimately is simply another  private use prefix that happens to confuse nat 
>traveral 
>
> hacks until hosts catch  up with it.

It's ironic that NAT traversal hacks can't handle NAT.

Lee

> 
> Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>  wrote:
> 
> >
> >On Jan 23, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Mark Smith  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 12:01:39 -0600
> >> "Frank  Bulk" <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> So that operators in ARIN's region have a reasonable path to  NAT444.  No 
>one
> >>> likes NAT444 and we acknowledge that this  designated space could be used 
>for
> >>> purposes other than what the  reasons that led to this policy proposal, 
>even
> >>> if the policy  proposal specified otherwise.  But as Owen said, the  
>operator
> >>> would be shooting themselves in the foot.  By the  time they use this 
space
> >>> for *something else* and then wanted to  do NAT444, they would not be able 
>to
> >>> justify a request for IPv4  space for NAT444.  
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> There's been  plenty of foot shooting in the past with private and
> >> non-allocated  address space. Why is this time going to be any
> >> different? Giving  away more address space with RFC1918's properties
> >> will only provide  a level of legitimacy to further foot shooting -
> >
> >The question is  who is doing the shooting and whose foot is being shot.
> >
> >In this  case, you've got a situation where the IETF and the end users
> >have  managed to shoot the ability to deploy NAT444 in the foot.
> >
> >If we  set aside this /10, that restores the ability for the ISPs to  deploy
> >NAT444 (bullet removal). Now, if an end-user proceeds to use  this
> >space, then they have shot off their own foot and I doubt anyone  will
> >have much sympathy for them. In other words, they can only  harm
> >themselves, not their ISP, not the rest of the community, so, who  cares?
> >
> >> people will ignore what this space is specifically  for because by its
> >> nature it can't be policed - I'm guessing the  Hamachi people
> >> will start using it straight away since they "lost"  5/8. If this /10
> >> never exists, then whenever people try to shoot  themselves in the foot
> >> they'll unavoidably know they're about to do  it. Of course you can't
> >> prevent stupidity, but you can make it more  obvious that it is
> >> occurring.
> >> 
> >This isn't about  people who shot themselves in the foot. This is about
> >people who are  loosing feet from shots fired by other  people.
> >
> >Owen
> >
> >>> Frank
> >>> 
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]  On
> >>> Behalf Of George Bonser
> >>> Sent: Saturday,  January 22, 2011 11:19 PM
> >>> To: Owen DeLong
> >>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> >>> Subject:  Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4
> >>>  Address Extension
> >>> 
> >>> <snip>
> >>> 
> >>> Why should the network come out of ARIN's hide?  If APNIC  and
> >>> IETF won't support it, why should ARIN?
> >>> 
> >>> <snip>
> >>> 
> >>>  _______________________________________________
> >>>  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.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>