[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension
hannigan at gmail.com
Fri Jan 21 00:01:16 EST 2011
In the long run, it doesn't matter what gets carved out post
exhaustion or for this. All bets are off. I wouldn't worry about this
at all. Its effectively a non issue. Even 1/8 pollution will be a non
On 1/20/11, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> On 1/20/11 18:17 CST, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
>> On 1/20/11 7:00 PM, "David Farmer"<farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> [ clip ]
>>> Why? This close to run-out I find it very hard to justify allocating 4
>>> million virgin IPv4 addresses from a fresh IANA allocation to ARIN for
>>> this purpose. However, recycling graciously returned IPv4 address for
>>> this purpose would be a little less distasteful in my opinion.
>>> Furthermore, ARIN has been and probably will be the only RIR that will
>>> see any sizable returned of Legacy address space; This fact provides a
>>> uniquely justified nexus for ARIN to consider this proposal instead of
>>> the other RIRs and even though the IETF failed to come to a consensus on
>>> the issue.
>> [ .. ]
>>> Therefore, I would like to see a recommendation to use 220.127.116.11/10 or
>>> another returned Legacy block added to the rationale of this proposal.
>> You've got it sort-of backwards. The IANA blocks are polluted and get
>> as they wind down. Being listed in bogons is not a guarantee of pristine
>> condition. 45/8 is probably better than anything that is left and equal to
>> whatever else is out there.
> OK, the virgins aren't so clean and white, I was more think of this from
> a policy prescriptive more than from how much junk and background
> radiation there is from the blocks in question. However, maybe going
> with the least useful block might be the better option.
> It was the policy nexus that ARIN receiving most of the returned Legacy
> space that got me thinking. Also, since people we talking about
> squatting on Legacy space, I thought maybe as a community we could agree
> which legacy space to squat on.
>> There is also global policy on deck that is attempting to deal with the
>> returned legacy address space issue, there's another effort underway now
>> supplant and possibly reconcile that same global proposal and finally,
>> is likely to be a regional policy directing ARIN as to how to handle
>> address space in the absence of global policy.
> I'd be pleasantly surprised to hear of progress, but unfortunately I'm
> not all that optimistic.
>> I do think that whatever is selected should be encoded in the proposal,
>> I think it's premature at this point.
> I agree specifying something as specific as a particular block probably
> isn't right way, especially in the policy text itself. But, maybe
> providing some suggestions in the rationale like "should allocate from a
> returned Legacy address space" or "should allocate the least useful
> blocks available" wouldn't be completely out of line either. So I
> agree, calling out 18.104.22.168/10 is probably way to specific.
> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML