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

[George, Wesley]

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Joel Jaeggli
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 1:24 PM
To: William Herrin
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - IAB comment

>> Why was an IPv4 address space proposal given to v6ops?

> it was given time early in the week at opsawg, and subsequently in the last meeting of v6ops.

> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/minutes/opsawg.txt


Does it really matter why?
We can certainly armchair quarterback the previous discussion in IETF, and rehash the debate about whether 2011-5 is a good idea on PPML (as we're starting to do)...
However, if the ARIN community wants to make this happen *with* the IETF instead of in spite of it, it'd be far more productive for those who supported 2011-5 to assist in writing/reviewing/supporting the draft(s) that must be written to get this back into the machinery at IETF. The cutoff for new -00 drafts to be discussed in Quebec City (week of July 25) is July 4, and updates to existing drafts (like one of the two variants of draft-weil*, which I believe is already being updated) is July 11. This can happen in parallel to any other recommendations that have come forward on this thread.

This is a divisive issue. For the sake of expediting any discussion and consensus building within IETF, I would strongly recommend that any draft addresses the most common objections and concerns that have come up pretty much every single time this has been discussed, rather than avoiding discussing them in the hopes that this time they won't come up. Otherwise we can look forward to another triple-digit length email discussion thread about it every time it gets to a wider audience at IETF. Therefore there is a good bit of work to be done in a short time.

If you're convinced that the IETF doesn't like real solutions for real operational problems, or that they missed the boat on this specific issue for some other reason, now is as good a time as any to get involved in IETF and insert the clue that you believe to be missing. Operator input is extremely important and often lacking.
Like ARIN, IETF does not require physical meeting attendance to participate, only an investment of time. Consider this a call to arms to get involved, especially if this shared transition space is critically important to your employer.

It's quite likely this will hit OPSAWG again. Here's the email list for that group - https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg so that those who are interested can be watching for the draft and voice support or opposition as they deem appropriate.

Wes George

* http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-01 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-weil-opsawg-provider-address-space-02


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.