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

[David Farmer]

On 6/27/11 16:32 CDT, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On Jun 27, 2011, at 12:43 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> In light of the IAB's objection, it seems to me that the ARIN board
>> has four options to consider:
>>
>> 1. Submit an internet draft as the IAB requests, along with the
>> implications of doing so.
>>
>> 2. Implement 2011-5  as recommended by the AC and community, and over
>> the IAB's objection.
>>
>> 3. Abandon 2011-5. Proponents may make their case to the IETF.
>>
>> 4. Implement 2011-5 as a temporary stopgap policy pending further IETF action.
>>
>
> Thanks for your analysis, Bill - I think this was a good write-up.
>
> While I do agree with some of your conclusions in 2, in my opinion ARIN should first pursue option 1.  If we can collaboratively agree on the reservation of Shared Transition Space, that would be preferred over ARIN acting alone.  And if in the end the IETF and ARIN do not agree on this matter, we can consider choosing one of the other options at that time.
>
> Given how drawn-out these things can become, I would also recommend ARIN hold back a /10 in reserve, until the IETF process concludes.  In pursuing the IETF process, we should write a draft that indicates ARIN is willing to "donate" a /10 for this purpose.  It would also be great to get co-authors from each RIR region, to act as local points of contact (although, probably not representatives).
>
> Cheers,
> -Benson

I believe we should do a combination of #1 and #2.  Let me explain further;

I would like to request John and ARIN staff to investigate possible 
precedent documented in RFC 3849[1] by the allocation of 2001:DB8::/32 
by APNIC.  My interpretation of the text in the RFC is that APNIC passed 
a policy allocating a prefix for documentation purposes and then members 
of the APNIC community authored an Informational RFC documenting the 
allocation and the technical justifications to the IETF.

The second paragraph of section 2 of RFC 3849;

    Following acceptance within the Asia Pacific regional addressing
    community of a proposal for a block of IPv6 address space to be
    reserved for documentation purposes, the Asia Pacific Network
    Information Centre (APNIC) allocated a unicast address prefix for
    documentation purposes.  The address block is within the range of a
    conventional allocation size, so that documentation can accurately
    match deployment scenarios.

I believe my interpretation is supported by minutes of the address 
policy sig from APNIC14[2] and the original draft submitted 
"draft-huston-ipv6-documentation-prefix-00"[3].

Therefore, I would like to suggest representatives from the ARIN 
Community, and the ARIN AC, author and submit and Informational RFC 
documenting the allocation of the /10 per ARIN policy development 
process, including the technical details and justification surrounding 
it.  And, once the Draft is submitted, the board move forward with 
implementing 2011-5 based on the precedence of the allocation of 
2001:DB8::/32 by APNIC, as documented in RFC3849.  I believe RFC2860 is 
clear that the IETF has a role, and it is desirable and necessary that 
such an allocation should be documented in RFCs, but it is not clear to 
me that ARIN cannot and MUST not make such an allocation base on the 
clear policy will of its community, especially based on the precedent of 
RFC 3849.

References;

1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3849
2. http://archive.apnic.net/meetings/14/sigs/policy/minutes.html#7
3. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huston-ipv6-documentation-prefix-00


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================