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

[Kevin Kargel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:53 AM
> To: Martin Hannigan
> Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for
> IPv4 Address Extension - IAB comment
> 
> 
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> > [ snip ]
> >
> >>>> 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.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I would think that either ARIN can move forward with the policy
> > "as-is" or it can't. If it can't, there's no mechanism that I can see
> > that allows a 'donation' of the address space to such an activity. I'm
> > not disagreeing that this should move forward _in the IETF_, but
> > shouldn't the IETF find the addresses for this from what's available,
> > including striking a deal with the RIR's? Hence, my comment regarding
> > "various registries" as the source of the addresses seemed like a
> > reasonable candidate.
> >
> 
> Actually, if I had a /10 laying around and made a public announcemnet
> of:
> 
> 	1.	I promise not to use these addresses in a manner that will
> 		conflict with people using it for this purpose.
> 
> 	2.	I will inform the community with as much notice as possible
> 		before giving up the address space.
> 
> It would pretty much work as a donation. I don't have a /10 laying around
> I could do that with, but, yes, whether as a matter of strict policy or
> not,
> such a donation would be possible from a purely pragmatic perspective.
> 
> The willingness of others to depend on such a donation would, of course,
> be somewhat variable.
> 
> Owen
> 
Putting out a public call for assistance might actually not be the dumbest idea we ever had.  According to tribal lore on the list there are at least a few orgs sitting on /8's that are not being efficiently (or even minimally) used.  If one of those orgs volunteered a /10 of that space for a calendar period it would certainly lock in their "ownership" (or at least garner some community gratitude) and keep the space from being considered for reclamation when the vultures start circling in the ends of days.  

All it would take would be a public commitment from the blockholder that they would not publically route the netblock for X years.

OK legacy holders, who wants to step up and save the world?  :D

Kevin