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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 3, 2011, at 3:20 AM, John Curran wrote:

> 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.
> 

The IAB advised that allocating the space would be contrary to RFC 2860.
They did not address the issue of identifying, reserving it and setting it
aside without allocating it which is what proposal 154 specifies.

>> 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.
> 
It does not direct the IETF and it does not specify ARIN's relationship with
another party.

It directs ARIN to extend particular communications to the IETF based on
ARIN's existing relationship with the IETF. It directs ARIN to make a request
of the IETF, it does not direct IETF to answer that request or in any way attempt
to constrain the behavior of the IETF. It merely specifies the nature of the
request that should be sent to the IETF which is, I think, a reasonable
request for ARIN to make under the circumstances.

IETF will do what IETF does regardless of any ARIN policy and I believe
that proposal 154 was written with that in mind. I do not believe that the
actions specified in proposal 154 are contrary to, but, rather a reasonable
set of actions to take within the bounds of the memorandum from the IAB.

>> 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.
> 
That is underway in a parallel effort, but, it is not mutually exclusive from
working on this policy which represents a reasonable way to make some
progress on behalf of the community within the bounds of the memorandum
from the IAB in response to AIRN's inquiry around draft policy 2011-5.

>> 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?
> 

I am concerned that there may or may not be a /10 block available by the time
IETF receives sufficient application of a clue-bat from the operational community
to finally address the situation in a manner consistent with the continued operation
of the internet. There is nothing in what I have seen of IETF behavior on the matter
to date to lead me to believe that they will promptly act in a favorable manner until
operators become so desperate to resolve the situation as to overwhelm the current
IETF entrenched religion with new participants from the operational community.

Owen