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

Tue Jun 28 11:45:19 EDT 2011

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Mark Smith
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 5:16 PM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for
> IPv4 Address Extension - IAB comment
> 
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:35:26 -0700
> Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
> > I believe there may be a fifth option.
> >
> > I believe that the ISPs who need this space might be able to  form a
> consortium and
> > use this as a standard justification to have the IPs registered to the
> consortium
> > as an organization. It would be up to the consortium after that whether
> they
> > expressed a willingness for non-members to make duplicate use of their
> > address space for this purpose or not.
> >

Maybe if we asked nicely Microsoft would set aside a /10 of their new IP's for five years to allow the community to use it for this purpose.  ;)  OK, that was more than a little tongue in cheek, but it would be a good PR effort for them.

> 
> This is the best way to solve this problem. It does not externalise the
> costs of this allocation to those who don't need the space i.e. the
> rest of the Internet community who don't have the particular problem
> that the proponents of this proposal want to solve.
> 
> > John Curran, could you please comment on whether such a request from
> > a consortium for an allocation or assignment could be processed within
> > staff interpretation of existing policy?
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > On Jun 27, 2011, at 10:43 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:11 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
> wrote:
> > >>> In keeping with the spirit of RFC 2860 with respect to the
> assignment
> > >>> of specialized address blocks, ARIN Staff will consult with the IANA
> and
> > >>> the IAB regarding implementation of this draft policy.
> > >>
> > >>> == A Procedural Issue: ARINA 2011-005 and RFC2860 section 4.3 ==
> > >>>
> > >>> The IAB honors and values the division of responsibilities as
> > >>> documented in RFC 2860 section 4.3. That section forms the basis for
> > >>> Unicast address allocation via ICANN through the RIR system.
> > >>>
> > >>> Policy proposal 2011-005 is not a regular proposal in the sense that
> > >>> it adheres to Unicast space. In contrast, it allows for an
> allocation
> > >>> of addresses for special and global use very similar to, and almost
> > >>> indistinguishable from, RFC1918 local addresses. Because of the
> impact
> > >>> beyond the ARIN region the management (i.e. creation
> > >>> and subsequent changes) of such reservation should be global and
> RFC2860
> > >>> puts the management responsibility with the IETF.
> > >>>
> > >>> The IAB believes that the adoption by ARIN would be in conflict with
> the
> > >>> provisions in RFC2860 and would set a bad precedent: Setting aside
> > >>> special addresses should be done within the existing process, i.e.
> by
> > >>> the IETF.
> > >>>
> > >>> If there is consensus for 2011-005 in the ARIN region we would be
> > >>> happy to work with you to resubmit the proposal to the IETF and, as
> > >>> usual, have the IESG judge consensus. This would include our
> reaching
> > >>> out to other RIRs to have members of their community provide input
> on
> > >>> this proposal. Clear support from the various RIR communities might
> > >>> bring new insights into to the IETF, producing a level of support
> that
> > >>> was not present with the earlier drafts.
> > >
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. The case for complying with the IAB's request:
> > >
> > > The Internet standards process works because of the cordial and
> > > cooperative atmosphere between the various NGOs and individual
> > > participants. The IETF is indeed the appropriate venue for global
> > > assignment of IP addresses to specific purposes as opposed to specific
> > > end users. However, we must observe that the IANA has insufficient
> > > unicast (class A, B or C) addresses available to award the IETF for
> > > the implementation of 2011-5's intended use.
> > >
> > > Accordingly, ARIN should reserve the /10 that 2011-5 calls for and
> > > hold it unused while championing an RFC through the IETF's standards
> > > process that uses the /10 as contemplated in 2011-5. Upon publication
> > > of such an RFC, the /10 would be ceded to IANA for use with the RFC.
> > > Upon a failure to reach consensus within the IETF process, the /10
> > > would be returned to the ARIN free pool for general use.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. The case for implementing 2011-5 over the IAB's objection.
> > >
> > > a. ARIN's constituents have expressed a well defined, well supported
> > > and consensus need for addresses to be used similar like RFC1918 space
> > > but with the expectation that such space crosses the administrative
> > > boundary between ISP and end-user and should, thus, not be used by the
> > > end-user.
> > >
> > > b. The IETF had the opportunity to act on these constituents' concerns
> > > but failed to take leadership citing, among other reasons, that it
> > > would deplete the pool of addresses available to the RIRs from IANA.
> > >
> > > c. The ARIN region is satisfied with depleting its own address pool
> > > for this purpose.
> > >
> > > d. The IAB's suggestion that the proposal be brought back to the IETF
> > > is rendered disingenuous by the fact that no addresses remain at the
> > > IANA for implementation.
> > >
> > > e. Precedent exists for RIRs to unilaterally act on regional
> > > imperatives despite potentially global impact. Witness APNIC's
> > > abandonment of needs-based allocation.
> > >
> > > Because of these points, ARIN has a moral duty to act on behalf of its
> > > constituents. Should the IETF desire to reclaim leadership in this
> > > matter, ARIN's open public policy process is available to all comers
> > > who may request that the addresses be reassigned to any RFC that is
> > > produced.
> > >
> > >
> > > 3. The case for abandoning 2011-5:
> > >
> > > The IETF is the proper venue for a proposal like 2011-5. Such
> > > proposals were considered and rejected. 2011-5 is an end-run around
> > > around the proper process.
> > >
> > >
> > > 4. The case for 2011-5 as a stopgap pending IETF action:
> > >
> > > ARIN constituents within the ARIN region have an immediate and
> > > pressing need for IP addresses to be used for the interior of multiple
> > > NAT translators. This need is not adequately served by the delay
> > > inherent in initiating a fresh proposal in the IETF's standards
> > > process, it is not adequately served by RFC1918 and it is poorly
> > > served by having every ISP use its own unique space allocated by ARIN.
> > > Due to the IETF's failure to act in a timely manner while addresses
> > > were still available to them from IANA, ARIN has a duty to act on its
> > > constituents' imperative.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, global assignment of addresses to purposes rather than
> > > registrants properly belongs with the IETF. ARIN should facilitate the
> > > IETF retaking the leadership on the matter by ending the ARIN-region
> > > policy and ceding the /10 address block back to IANA after the IETF
> > > debates, drafts and publishes an RFC that the board of trustees
> > > believes meets or exceeds ARIN constituents' expectations for these
> > > addresses.
> > >
> > >
> > > For your consideration,
> > > Bill Herrin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> > > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> > > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PPML
> > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.