[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA - Last Call
farmer at umn.edu
Tue Nov 1 14:18:16 EDT 2011
On 11/1/11 12:24 CDT, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:34 PM, David Farmer<farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> 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
>>>> 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.
> I think you may not have actually read the proposal then. Unlike this
> proposal, it was entirely needs based. If you had more than N, you got
> nothing. If you qualifed, you got an equal part. Im not sure how any
> RIR with addresses in their pool for years to come would have any
> complaint, but they did find them. This proposal is a simple tossing
> of the political football. That's already been well established and
> acknowledged by most.
I thought I was asked about what changed in the opinion of other
regions. I was trying to communicate what I heard as the objections of
>> 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.
> All this proposal does is insure that no addresses ever get returned
> from the ARIN pool unless the ARIN BoT and staff act unilaterally,
> which is the undesired side effect of adopting this proposal. BTW, you
> didn't mention that the previous proposal was adopted with
> _overwhelming_ support in this community, something that we're unable
> to say about this proposal.
Yes ARIN-2010-10 did receive overwhelming support in the ARIN Region,
but it utterly failed in all the other regions that bothered to take it
up, a couple decided to drop it simply because it had already been
dropped in other regions.
Not only does this policy seem to have consensus in this region, but it
has been approved, or has reached consensus and on its way to being
approved, in all of the other regions too. Which is a requirement of a
> At best, the change in the rationale altered the meaning of the
> proposal to begin with and invalidates it as a violation of the global
> pdp, but we'll see how that works out.
Actually, I'm fine with removing the change to the rationale, but I
would like to see a valid consensus on the list for that, since it
didn't come up at the PPM. Should I count you in support of removing
the change to the Rationale? That could be inferred from your
statement, but it doesn't clearly say that.
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