[arin-ppml] Fwd: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request

[CJ Aronson]

This is an update on the shared transition space draft that relates to ARIN
2011-5.

----Cathy

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica at juniper.net>
Date: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:25 PM
Subject: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request
To: IESG IESG <iesg at ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>


On October 10, 2011, the IESG issued a last call for comments regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix
for Shared CGN Space). While the community did not display consensus
supporting the draft, it also did not display consensus against the draft.
Therefore, I will submit the draft to the full IESG for its consideration
at its December 1 teleconference. The draft will be published as a BCP if a
sufficient number of IESG members ballot "Yes" or "No Objection", and if no
IESG member ballots "Discuss".

Because the decision to submit this draft to the full IESG is
controversial, I will explain the decision making process.

The IETF has a precedent for interpreting silence as consent. Typically, if
a last call elicits no response, the draft is brought to the full IESG for
consideration. The October 10 last call regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 evoked only two responses.
One response supported publication of the draft while the other was opposed
to it. The respondent voicing support for the draft offered no rationale.
The respondent objecting offered many editorial comments, but almost no
rationale for blocking the draft once the editorial comments are addressed.

Because the October 10 last call elicited so little response, and because
many community members have privately expressed strong opinions regarding
this draft, I will summarize outstanding issues below. The following are
arguments *against* draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request:

- Allocation of a special-use /10 does not hasten the deployment of IPv6.
It only extends the life of the IPv4 network.
- If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will be used as additional RFC 1918
address space, despite a specific prohibition against such use stated by
the draft.
- If a special-use /10 is allocated, it will encourage others to request
still more special-use address space.
- Some applications will break. These applications share the characteristic
of assuming that an interface is globally reachable if it is numbered by an
non-RFC 1918 address. To date, the only application that has been
identified as breaking is 6to4, but others may be identified in the future.

Arguments *supporting* draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 assume
that operators will deploy CGNs and will number the interfaces between CGN
and CPE. If the /10 proposed by draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request
is not allocated, operators will number from one of the following:

- public address space
- RFC 1918 address space
- squat space

If operators number from public address space, they will deplete an already
scarce resource. If operators number from RFC 1918 space and the same RFC
1918 space is used on the customer premise, some CPE will behave badly. The
consequences of numbering from squat space are determined by the squat
space that is chosen.

In summary, allocation of the /10 will have certain adverse effects upon
the community. However, failure to allocate the /10 will have different
adverse effects on the community. The IESG is being asked to choose the
lesser of two evils.


--------------------------
Ron Bonica
vcard:       www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111129/ef8a6849/attachment.htm>