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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sat Jan 22 17:26:28 EST 2011

On Jan 22, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Jack Bates wrote:

> On 1/22/2011 2:22 PM, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
>> If current policy allows for IPv4 requests to be fulfilled based on the need
>> for numbering a CGN network, I would be willing to support an amendment to
>> prop-127 that would nullify this justification, but that's about as far as I
>> think we can go.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ARIN
>> mandates the use of specific type of addressing within a member's operation;
>> the closest concept I could find is micro-allocations.
> I don't see where current policy would forbid it. This restriction to justification is a safety measure to insure the /10 has maximum effect when dealing with CGN networks. It would not prohibit them from using RFC-1918 either.

Current policy doesn't forbid it. I think that ARIN staff would infer from this policy
that the community intent is not to consume other space and would actually
take care of the issue you are describing anyway. However, I support making
it clear in the proposal.

> ARIN has not normally mandated specific address types, as there is a limitation in types. I suspect that using class D addressing as a justification for an allocation might be met with some resistance. This /10 allocation is a new type designed to meet a specific need by ARIN. The policy still will not mandate the use of CGN; only mandate that you cannot use the addressing behind the CGN in your IPv4 address justifications (though they are still technically applicable to IPv6 justifications, though not directly since we gauge IPv6 differently).
Yep. You and Frank are in violent agreement. You're saying the same thing.

> We could, I believe, even take it a step further and mandate a ratio for CGN in the public side justifications (I believe this was done for modem bank ratios at one point?). Such a mandate would fit in a different policy proposal, though. Not this one.
I don't remember any ARIN policy for modem bank ratios. If there was ever such a
thing, it was before my time.

We should not make policy for ratios. Ratios are a performance tuning issue
and the ratio needed will change over time, starting relatively low as few customers
are forced to NAT444, growing as that userbase increases, and then shrinking as
the need for IPv4 service access declines.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list