[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-2: 3GPP Network IP Resource Policy

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Fri Mar 29 17:27:58 EDT 2013

That is my understanding of the author's intent, yes. IPv6 policy does not have the problem described, because even a /32 has more than enough addresses for all the mobile devices on a single network. Also, current IPv6 policy allows for larger subnets to be allocated to ensure appropriate sized subnets are given to each customer, and to provide for hierarchical allocation. 

When we write the policy text for any preferred solution, we'll be sure to place it in the appropriate section and make clear that it applies to IPv4 only. The "policy statement" is more of an outline at this point: we need to decide which solution is preferred before settling on policy text. 


On Mar 29, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom.com> wrote:

> Scott,
> Can we assume it intends to change the IPv4 policy only?
> Though the problem statement describes about IPv4,
> the policy statement doesn't specify IPv4 or both.
> Rgs,
> ---
> Masato Yamanishi
> Softbank Telecom America (former Japan Telecom America)
> On 13/03/27 12:41, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> As one of the AC shepherds for the policy, I am hoping to have a
>>> discussion,
>>> both here on PPML at at the upcoming ARIN meeting, to cover a few key
>>> points:
>>> - Is the problem statement clear to the community?
>> Yes. Existing software limitations make it difficult to impossible to
>> run a reliable 3GPP network at greater than around 40% utilization of
>> addresses versus connected subscribers. Current ARIN standards require
>> 80% (?) utilization.
>>> - Do you feel that it is an important problem to try to solve?
>> Yes.
>>> - If so, how would you prefer we approach solving it?
>> Dual stack: IPv4 CGN plus IPv6.
>> This problem is not unique to 3GPP architectures. Virtually every
>> eyeball network has a version this problem with similarly scoped
>> technical limitations. The ship sailed on solving it with more IPv4
>> addresses years ago. What's "special" here that makes it any different
>> from everybody else's unmet need?
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>> -- 
>> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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