[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-154 Shared Space for IPv4 Address Extension (w/IETF considerations) - Staff Comments

[John Curran]

On Jul 2, 2011, at 11:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> But 154 requires a set-aside of the space regardless of whether the IAB
> approves using it for that purpose or not. It provides for the public to know
> what block was set aside, though ARIN is instructed to discourage its use
> prior to IAB/IESG/IETF approval.

Owen - 

  ARIN already consulted with the IAB precisely on the point of making such 
  an allocation as described in Draft Policy 2011-5 and received the response 
  which I already posted to this list (to the effect that the IAB believes 
  that the adoption of the policy by ARIN and subsequent allocation would be 
  in conflict with the provisions in RFC2860)  

  That response will be provided to the ARIN Board (which took Draft Policy
  2011-5 under advisement) to determine the best path forward, which could 
  still have ARIN reserving space for this purpose or even making the /10
  allocation while the matter in still being discussed within the IETF.  
  That is up to the Board to decide based on their consideration of the 
  IAB response, as it is not a matter of policy but instead is matter of
  ARIN's agreements and relation to other Internet bodies.

  If ARIN-prop-154 were to be recommended for adoption by the Board, it 
  also would be sent to the Board with note to the effect that that ARIN 
  staff recommends consulting with the IAB prior implementation of this 
  draft policy.  Since ARIN works are part of the Internet Registry system 
  in cooperation with the IANA, and there is an MOU between ICANN and IAB 
  which delineates the appropriate roles, any recommended draft policy 
  that runs contrary to that agreement will be sent to the Board with 
  such a recommendation to consult with the IAB prior to implementation.
 
> Since you bring it up, care to specify which language you consider not
> germane to number resource policy?

  Number reosource policy does not specify ARIN's relationships with 
  other parties; the specific language in question includes: "ARIN shall 
  advise the IETF of the /10 reserved and shall request that the IETF 
  determine issues associated with using the /10 as described, set 
  appropriate constraints on the use of the block and publish an RFC 
  documenting the block's recommended use. ARIN shall make manpower 
  and other resources available to the IETF as necessary to facilitate 
  such activity."  Whether an ARIN policy even should direct the IETF 
  in such a manner, particularly after receiving differing advice from
  the IAB, is not a question of number resource policy.

> I believe that proposal 154 addresses some of those issues in a more direct
> and head-on manner and if it receives community consensus (there does
> appear to be strong support so far), that would send a rather clear message
> to the board about the desires of the community.

  I'm certain that the Board is well-aware that the community desires this
  reservation.  The community also has to realize that the development of
  the Internet Protocol, including the Internet Protocol address space, 
  is subject to the technical oversight of the IETF (that is indeed the 
  purpose of the RFC 2860 agreement.)  If the community doesn't feel that 
  there is any technical issue with this reservation, then folks should 
  definitely engage with the IETF to make plain why this is the case.

> I agree that it is appropriate for the board to deliberate the manner. I also feel
> that it is appropriate for the community to take further action to express their
> desires to the board and to insure that options are not overtaken by events
> while the board engages in said deliberation.

  Please elaborate on this point.  Are you concerned that there will not be a
  /10 block available for this purpose by the time the ARIN Board considers the
  IAB response?

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN