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

[William Herrin]

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 6:20 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>  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 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.

John,

In the PDP which the Board created and approved, the Board did not
exclude from policy the direction they are asked to take with respect
to relations with other Internet bodies. Quite the contrary, we talk
about it all the time in things like draft 2011-1. You can repeat your
claim all you want but it isn't supported.

The Board may ultimately decide that 154 is bad policy, even if the AC
recommends it. It's their job to be that final filter. But you are
mistaken to think that things which touch on ARIN's relationship with
other Internet bodies are not policy or that they should not be
debated in this forum.


>  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.

With the benefit of the IAB's comments, and the benefit of comments
from Joel and Tony among others, it seems obvious to me that the IETF
MUST be involved with technical oversight of the function 2011-5
proposes. If there is someone to whom that doesn't seem obvious, let
them speak up. But that isn't the end of the story; it's only the
beginning.

For one thing, the addresses have to come from somewhere and ARIN is
the reasonable source. Whether ARIN should be that source is a matter
of policy.

For another, this industry has a long history of pushing technology
out there as it becomes needed and then bringing it into compliance
once it has been properly standardized. Kflex before v92. Cisco POE
before 802.3af. Prestandard 802.11n. And for sure 2011-5 is needed and
needed yesterday. Whether we follow that industry tradition in this
matter is not a question of law or business practice, it's a question
of policy. It is entirely appropriate that this forum seek consensus
and advise the board as to what posture we want them to adopt.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004