[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension
owen at delong.com
Fri Jan 21 13:31:11 EST 2011
On Jan 21, 2011, at 6:30 AM, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
>> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 5:18 AM
>> That's absurd. If any registry reserves a /10, I'm sure all the
>> registries will
>> encourage their members to use that /10. To the best of my knowledge,
>> there are no plans to submit this proposal to any other registries (and
>> I talked to the proposal author about it the day before yesterday in
> [WES] *IF* we consider this policy, it should be a global policy in order to
> remove all doubt that this is the intent. I don't like the idea of ARIN
> reserving a block and *hoping* that folks from other regions will know about
> it and use it.
I think a global policy has too much overhead and it doesn't actually
work for this purpose anyway.
I will guarantee you that the other RIRs will be informed of the state
of this policy in the ARIN region if it passes. I will also guarantee you
that if this space is publicized as being available for shared usage
by ARIN, the other RIRs will encourage their registrants to make
use of it where applicable.
Every RIRs policy development process includes an analysis of
each proposal that includes the state of similar policies in the
other regions. If this were proposed somewhere else after it has
passed in the ARIN region, that analysis would show that the
ARIN space has already been reserved and made available
for that purpose.
>> I think in principle, you really can assume that the RIRs are not
>> and won't commit wanton acts of destruction on the community.
> [WES] Perhaps, but you can't necessarily assume that they will be in
> lock-step coordination on this, especially since a similar proposal has
> already been shot down at least once in another region. What are they going
> to do, ask each applicant "is this for an inside NAT444 pool?" so that they
> can redirect them to the shared address space instead of just approving
> their request for space? Without any policy mandate to do so? Now who's
> being absurd?
Can you provide a reference to this? I know about it being shot down
in IETF, but, somehow I missed it if it was on any of the other RIR policy
I can assure you that the other RIRs will be made aware of it if this
policy passes in the ARIN region.
More information about the ARIN-PPML