[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - IAB comment

[John Curran]

On Jun 28, 2011, at 1:51 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> Why cannot an existing (or new) organization make the case for allocation of the /10 to them, with the "justified need" being that they will be sharing it with themselves and everyone else who needs this type of space? As long as *any* organization is actually using the space in this way, it won't be reclaimed due to lack of need. Done.
> 
> At least as long as we don't pass something that requires an actual layer 2 connection between the holder of the space and its user, of course.

There are several organizations which have sufficient need on their own to 
justify such allocations, and to my knowledge nothing precludes them sharing 
the use of such an allocation.  

The advantages of an IANA-assigned reservation for this purpose is clarity
and elimination of risk from a business perspective for any organization 
which builds plans dependent on this address block.  While it is possible 
that such clarity could be be obtained by agreement (explicit or otherwise)
with an organizational registrant of an appropriately-sized allocation, that 
also would would take some degree of effort and coordination.

This is not to recommend such an approach, only to note that it appears to be 
a possibility if the available mechanisms to obtain an IANA reservation are too 
onerous to undertake or are ultimately unsuccessful.  There would be some irony 
to such a result, but if it is the will of the community to have this outcome 
then it is very likely to be satisfied in the end in some manner or another.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN