[arin-ppml] Suggested update to PP 157
farmer at umn.edu
Fri Nov 11 19:55:44 EST 2011
On 11/11/11 17:31 CST, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Policy statement: Number resources within the ARIN region may be
> released to ARIN by an authorized resource holder for transfer to a
> specified recipient who qualifies for resources under current ARIN
> The original text was overly complex and imprecise. The modified
> language has been reduced to be clear with respect to allowing
> specified transfers of "number resources". The definition of "number
> resources" is any IPv4 address or addresses, IPV6 address or addresses
> or a 2 byte or 4 byte ASN individually or collectively.
> The edits that I'm suggesting match almost verbatim comments and
> suggestions from the staff C/U.
While I still can't support this text as written, more on that in a bit.
This is much cleaner text, and deals with the editorial issues I had
with the original version, except I have a new one now;
A suggestion from the lessons I'm taking out of the 2011-1 debacle; The
title of this policy proposal is "Section 8.3 Simplification", note that
wasn't included with this email, and I had to go look. I believe this
intends to completely replace section 8.3. So, then lets either add the
NRPM section number and title into the policy text or clearly state that
this will completely replace NRPM section 8.3 in the rationale. Maybe
even go for triple overkill and have it in the title, the policy text,
and the rationale. :) Going only from the email you just sent, the fact
that text was to replace Section 8.3 wasn't abundantly clear. I was
able to figure it out, but you get my point.
Now to policy issues;
I support adding designated transfers for ASNs, to the currently allowed
IPv4 resources, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed.
However, before I can support designated transfers for IPv6 resources
there are a whole number of technical issues that would need to be
discussed and successfully resolved. Like; What would be the effect on
sparse allocation? We would do next nibble boundary of which
allocation? If I have a /32 currently, can I receive a /32, only a /28
that ARIN would round me up to, or anything between?
I'm not saying these issues can't be resolved; but that I can't support
designated transfers for IPv6 without resolving them first. I imagine
we could keep 8.3 as simple as you propose and maybe deal with some of
these issues in the details of the IPv6 policy sections.
If what the community wants in the short run is ASNs to be transferable,
I support that and think that is fairly easy. Heck, the current ASN
policy is only about three paragraphs. However, IPv6 designated
transfers are going to need to be thought through. I think that can be
done, if the community wants, but it will take work, probably more than
a little bit too.
My personal suggestion is to limit designated transfers to IPv4 and ASNs
for now and come back and deal with designated transfers for IPv6 later.
Something tells me we have other fish to fry over the next year or two.
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