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

Benson Schliesser bensons at queuefull.net
Tue Jul 5 14:24:00 EDT 2011

Hi, John.

(I've already expressed my opinion that ARIN can act independently in this instance, but I view that approach as a less preferable option and will ignore it for the purposes of this discussion below.)

On Jul 5, 2011, at 8:28 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2011, at 4:48 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> "4.3. Two particular assigned spaces present policy issues in addition
>>  to the technical considerations specified by the IETF: the assignment
>>  of domain names, and the assignment of IP address blocks. These
>>  policy issues are outside the scope of this MOU.
>> "
> ....
> You fail to note that RFC 2860 continues immediately thereafter to say: 
> " Note that (a) assignments of domain names for technical uses (such as 
>  domain names for inverse DNS lookup), (b) assignments of specialised 
>  address blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks), and (c) 
>  experimental assignments are not considered to be policy issues, 
>  and shall remain subject to the provisions of this Section 4. "
> i.e. not outside the scope of the MOU, and in particular subject to the
> provisions of section 4 which in particular calls for IANA to assign and
> register Internet protocol parameters only as directed by the criteria and 
> procedures specified in RFCs.

Given that IANA cannot necessarily comply (with an instruction from the IETF to assign large "specialised address blocks" at this time) it is clear that one of the RIRs must be involved in any such activity.  In the case of ARIN, would it be more appropriate for (1) a /10 to be "donated" to the IETF in support of such a reservation, or (2) a /10 to be returned to IANA with the explicit condition that it is applied to the IETF instruction?

Option #2 seems like the only way to interact within the unmodified framework of RFC 2860 at this time, but seems to be more complicated by the lack of global policy etc.  Thus, would an RFC "updating RFC 2860" be adequate to pursue option #1?

Other thoughts and/or advise would be appreciated, as well.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list