[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-137 Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Thu Mar 17 16:37:55 EDT 2011

This is the one case, due to global RIR community failure to reach
consensus on related issues and the likelihood that we never will,
that ICANN should do what needs to be done.

This should not be considered support to do it consecutively ie if
addresses some how found their way back to the IANA. Just this time
and this issue.



On 3/17/11, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> On 3/17/11 13:06 CDT, John Springer wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> Just to you, not the list:
> No, you sent it to the list;
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, David Farmer wrote:
>>> On 3/13/11 15:08 CDT, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>>>> No, I would like to take whatever measures necessary to make sure that
>>>> IANA never touches IPv4 space, ever again.
>>>> Jeff
>>> Too late, IANA still has some bits of IPv4.
>>> From the transcript of the APNIC meeting three weeks ago;
>>>> Leo Vegoda: We actually appear to have about a /20 in bits and pieces
>>>> of /24, which I think would be the seed for any reclamation pool were
>>>> such a policy to be passed.
>>>> Of course, if people don't want us to allocate those eight, I think
>>>> it is, /24s, then we can probably just pass them out to staff and,
>>>> you know, sort it out that way. In any case, we do have very small
>>>> bits currently waiting for a policy. It's not really very much, so
>>>> you probably don't want to go through a lot of effort just to get
>>>> that /20. In any case, there is some space in /24s and no one is
>>>> using it at the moment.
>>> Should we leave them in jail at IANA? Or, put together a simple policy
>>> that allows them out of jail to be put to use?
>> I hope you won't be offended, but in the race to find the smallest
>> possible item of V4 concern, this seems pretty close to the theoretical
>> minimum.
>> I don't have a strong opinion about this proposal, but citing the
>> existance of these addresses as rationale one way or the other seems
>> immaterial.
>> I'd rather have IANA hang on to them.
>> John Springer
> I don't disagree at all, but this needs to be a conscious choice and not
> one made by default.  I don't want anyone thinking we accidentally left
> addresses at IANA. If we want to leave addresses at IANA I'm fine with
> that, as long as we consciously chose to do so.
> However, the tone of the previous post was that, we don't need this
> policy because we can just make sure that IANA doesn't have any IPv4
> address space, which is not and will not be the case.
> --
> ===============================================
> 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
> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list