[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension
farmer at umn.edu
Fri Jan 21 13:43:05 EST 2011
On 1/21/11 08:30 CST, 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.
If ARIN does this (again this is a BIG IF), I agree how we do it matters
However, if we do it as a Global Policy, it is my understanding that
ARIN and the other RIRs, as the NRO of ICANN would essentially be
directing IANA to do it, instead of the IETF directing IANA to do it.
We ARIN wouldn't be doing it per se. In some ways that is an interesting
idea, but means that all the RIRs have to pass the Global Policy and be
reviewed by the NRO AC and the ICANN board before it could happen, which
may be to late from a practical perspective.
There is the notion of a globally coordinated policy where the other
RIRs could pas a policy that is compatible with ARIN's policy, probably
simply recognizing the allocation ARIN make.
Or maybe another option is for ARIN (not sure who the individuals should
be) to submit an Informational RFC identifying the allocation it makes
for this purpose, similar to RFC 3849 "IPv6 Address Prefix Reserved for
Documentation", that was more or less lead by APNIC I believe. I didn't
follow that process at the time so maybe this situation isn't analogous
at all, I just don't know.
Also a procedural question, is it necessary for this kind of policy to
go into the NRPM? Basically the policy just directing ARIN staff to make
a special allocation that would be document by Whois, wouldn't that be
sufficient documentation? Especially, if we further document it with a
Informational RFC submitted to the IETF or a web page similar to what
APNIC has for the IPv6 Documentation prefix.
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
More information about the ARIN-PPML