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

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Mon Jul 4 12:20:02 EDT 2011

On Jul 4, 2011, at 12:26 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> Yes, I understand your interpretation of the matter. You recommend we
> punt back to the IETF and let them run with the ball for a while. And
> if someone else would like to write a proposal that ARIN play lap dog
> to the IETF on prop 2011-5, I'm sure I can find it within myself not
> to invent process grounds for objecting.

Bill - RFC2860 indicates that the IETF should establish the criteria
and procedures for a reservation of the type proposed in Draft Policy
2011-5. It's not just my recommendation, it is the long-standing 
agreement regarding the roles of the IETF and the Internet registry 

> So I ask you: does this replacement resolve your concern with the
> prior text that it could be viewed as a procedure instead of a policy?
> I recognize that you have other concerns, but does it resolve that
> one?

The change eliminates the specification of a procedure, and as such
is an improvement.  It does not address the fact that it specifies
how ARIN interacts with another organization contrary to existing 
agreements, nor that it requires an immediate implementation step 
that the ARIN Board specifically set aside so it could request IAB 
guidance, nor the fact that the proposal is otherwise is duplicative 
of an existing draft policy already recommended to the ARIN Board
for adoption.

> On a personal note, I appreciate your engagement on this issue. While
> I disagree with some of your conclusions, I have found your comments
> to be valuable and insightful.

I am glad this is helpful; I am presently out of the office on personal
travel but will do my best to respond in a timely manner.

> ...
> You have 2860 wrong. It doesn't prevent ARIN from allocating addresses
> for use on the public Internet. It only enjoins ARIN from acting as
> the technical standards body that precisely defines the allocation's
> use.

I disagree; RFC 2860 puts into words a specific relationship that has
existed for many, many years.

> We can dance the language a little bit more. Make it an allocation
> which will be made in whole to multiple organizations instead of just
> one so that in a strict technical reading it is virtually the same as
> every other allocation we make. After all, we don't guarantee
> routability of any assignment and 2860 doesn't actually require one
> registrant to an address block. Global uniqueness is our policy and
> while there are RFCs, uniqueness is not part of the IANA MOU.

Absolutely. Whether that would be perverting the intent of RFC2860
would be a determination for the ARIN Board, particularly given that
the IAB has already considered this matter at the Board's request and 
asked that it be taken to the IETF so the technical implications can 
be considered.


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list