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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Oct 20 11:38:41 EDT 2011

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 20, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Randy Whitney <randy.whitney at verizon.com> wrote:

> On 10/19/2011 3:12 PM, ARIN wrote:
>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 14 October 2011 and decided to
>> send the following draft policy to last call:
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal)
>> Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA
>> Date: 22 September 2011
>> Policy statement:
>> The IANA shall establish a Recovered IPv4 Pool to be utilized post
>> RIR IPv4 exhaustion. The Recovered IPv4 Pool will initially contain
>> any fragments that may be left over in the IANA. It will also hold
>> any space returned to the IANA by any other means.
>> The Recovered IPv4 Pool will be administered by the IANA. It will
>> contain:
> ...
>> The NRO must clarify that this Global Policy is not intended to
>> supersede the IETF’s right to make IPv4 assignments for
>> “specialised address blocks (such as multicast or anycast
>> blocks)” as documented in section 4.3 of RFC 2860. The
>> NRO and IANA should coordinate with the IETF to make such
>> assignments as necessary, and honor any reservations made
>> for works currently in progress.
> I'm not sure I understand this concern. Do we see this happening on
> either side? Do we see IETF making "new" assignments outside of what has
> been defined for many years (under the classfull system, IIRC)? Do we
> see IANA trying to break into Class E space, for example, for new
> allocations?
Prior to recent changes to draft-Weil and draft-bdgks, there was a concern that this proposal and the effort to get a shared transition /10 made available could collide in a way where IANA process may not lead to the desired result.

> I support immediate adoption of this proposal, preferably without this
> last statement. I don't really wish to delay the adoption of this policy
> by trying to force a formal statement out of the NRO nor delay
> subsequent RIR allocations under this policy by compelling IANA to
> coordinate these allocation efforts with IETF, when no such cooperation
> is required.

I think the need for the last statement is past and it is now moot. I don't think its presence or absence will affect the timing.

> (To complete this thought: if in the future, IANA chooses to break into
> IETF space for allocations, we as a community could always write new
> policy to reject the reserved space as invalid.)

It was more intended to make sure that new special address space requested by draft-Weil did not get tied up and shunted into this policy.


> Best Regards,
> Randy
> _______________________________________________
> 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