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

Jack Bates jbates at brightok.net
Sat Jan 22 13:29:28 EST 2011

On 1/22/2011 12:07 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying Jack, I think I now understand your suggestion.
> Basically add a sentence or two stating that internal LSN addressing
> is not a valid justification of need for new IPv4 requests. I believe
> that it's worth considering including that - if it were included,
> would you support the proposal?

I'd disagree with it still (as I'd much prefer to have that /10 open for 
other uses such as content providers), but I WOULD support it for two 

1) It would at least be better than losing a /10 plus the other space 
LSN would cost ARIN (not concerned with other regions use of the /10 or 
policies, only ours); ie, it already has decent support, and I'd rather 
a better policy go into effect than what this currently is.

2) It makes it a much grittier policy. It says, take it as a whole or we 
don't implement it at all. This is not freebie space to be abused.

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.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list