[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - IAB comment
jcurran at arin.net
Wed Jun 29 02:40:53 EDT 2011
On Jun 28, 2011, at 3:05 AM, David Farmer wrote:
> I would like to request John and ARIN staff to investigate possible precedent documented in RFC 3849 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.
David - I'm quite familiar with the RFC 3849 document, but that does not
automatically alter the existing agreements which outline the roles of the
IANA and the RIRs (and one might readily argue that there is far more at
issue with shared transition reservation versus a documentation prefix...)
Note - this doesn't mean that your suggestion regarding the next step isn't
perfectly reasonable, as follows:
> 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.
I believe that there are folks working on exactly that: I know that Chris
Grundemann and Benson Schliesser both expressed interest to me to working
on this effort, and I encourage anyone else interested in helping out to
reach out to them accordingly.
> 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.
I will convey this to the ARIN Board as one possible course of action
when it considers the IAB response. Making the reservation for this
purpose without conferring with IAB would not have respected the nature
of the ARIN/IANA relationship, and the exact degree of engagement with
the IETF community which is most appropriate is a matter of judgement.
To the extent that we have a clear document in the IETF which explains
why the reservation is needed, along with a strong show of support in
that community, the path forward will not be difficult.
President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-PPML