[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space forIPv4 Address Extension - IAB comment

[Owen DeLong]

Yes, they opened the door to having the IETF reconsider it, but, they slammed the door on ARIN doing it through the ARIN policy process.

That is what I said and I think it is an accurate statement.

Owen

On Jun 27, 2011, at 3:01 PM, John Curran wrote:

> Owen -
> 
>     I completely disagree with your characterization of 
> the IAB correspondence.   The IAB went out of its way 
> to open the door to reconsideration of this matter within
> the IETF process.  If the community wishes to raise this 
> matter there, it will be heard.
> 
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 5:01 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jun 27, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>> 
>>> I support either option 2/4 of Bill's option list or this idea of an allocation to an entity who publicly allows for them to be shared for internal use only.
>>> Either way it's insane to dole out addresses to multiple ISPs for this same internal use purpose.
>>> I guess my preference would be to do it in policy, otherwise if this justification is used for the new entity, couldn't it be used subsequently (and wastefully) by another entity?
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>> 
>> I would prefer to do it in policy as well and for exactly that reason. However, that door just got slammed in our face by the IAB, so, pragmatically, I think the best we can do is encourage the formation of a coalition and hope that exactly one coalition forms and is able to convince people to do the right thing and use the one unit of space rather than filing duplicate requests from multiple organizations.
>> 
>> Given the outcome of ARIN's correspondence with IAB, I'm not sure how else we can meet the needs of these ISPs.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110627/38b5ecd6/attachment.htm>