[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA - Last Call

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Tue Nov 1 12:34:34 EDT 2011

On 11/1/11 10:07 CDT, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:02 AM, David Farmer<farmer at umn.edu>  wrote:
>> The formal last call for 2011-9 ends tomorrow.  There haven't been many
>> comments.
>> There has been a total of 8 emails from 5 individuals, 1 in support, 0 in
>> opposition, 4 with no clear statement of support or opposition.
> Hi David,
> What has changed in the proposal since we looked at it six months ago,
> consented to it provided nothing would be interpreted as requiring or
> expecting ARIN to return any particular addresses to IANA and were
> told it was dead in the other regions because it didn't lay out what
> addresses were expected to be returned?

The following is entirely my personal interpretation of the events, from 
my discussion with people from other regions;

I believe the biggest issue for other regions wasn't that we couldn't 
support mandatory return in global proposal that was ARIN-2009-3, but 
was a procedural objection.  That we changed the text of our proposal 
rather then do a strait up-down vote on the text presented to us.  In 
other words, they wanted us to vote the original proposal down and 
submit another new proposal. That is not what I believe, but my 
interruption of what others believe was our correct course of action in 
the situation.

Then the objection to ARIN-2010-10 was that it included language about 
transfers and seemed to be a winner take all of the pool, the first one 
with need seemed to get the whole pool.  I believe if we submitted our 
change version of ARIN-2009-3 as a new proposal it might have received a 
different fate that  ARIN-2010-10, but that is Monday morning 
quarterbacking, and is not completely fair.

This is covered in the rationale of this proposal, minus the 
implementation guidance requesting that the NRO clarify the RFC 2860 
issue, especially the objections to ARIN-2010-10, but it also includes 
our objection the the original ARIN-2009-3 text.

In my opinion, the question "should ARIN return any address space to 
IANA" is a completely separate local issue, that this global policy 
recognizes.  I haven't hid my opinion on the matter and made a public 
response to the question in open mic at the PPM.

By the way the guidance to the AC from the floor of the PPM on this 
proposal as written was 47 in favor and 2 against.  That seems to be to 
be a clear consensus for the policy.

Rationale from ARIN-2011-9:

The policy provides a mechanism for the ongoing distribution of
IPv4 address space, while removing the areas that have been
problematic in previous attemts at this proposal. The proposal:

- Permits regional variation in runout policy amongst RIRs to
be accounted for in the distribution of the Recovered IPv4 Pool

- Prevents the possibility of a single RIR being eligible to
be allocated the entire Recovered IPv4 Pool in the first
(and perhaps only) allocation period

- Removes two areas of policy that have failed to reach
agreement in previous attempts at this proposal:

- How addresses should be placed in the Recovered IPv4 Pool
- References to how transfers should or should not take

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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list