[arin-ppml] Solving the squatting problem

Michel Py michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
Thu May 16 22:53:57 EDT 2019

> Mark Andrews wrote :
> 240/4 isn’t ARIN’s to allocate or do you think ARIN should squat on the space? :-)

I was trying to find a more politically correct way to say it ;-)
Look, you give me lemons, I make lemonade.

How did we call that, when ARIN started to allocate IPv6 PI when no such thing existed ? There was quite a bit of artistic license taken then. IPv6 PI was not ARIN to allocate either.

> David Farmer wrote :
> I suppose we could try a global policy that would have to pass in all 5 RIRs requesting IANA
> and the IETF to allocate 240/4 for Private Use. If that were to actually occur, it seems
> difficult for the IETF to ignore such a request. While on the other hand, I'm not sure there
> would be a consensus within the ARIN community, let alone the other RIRs, to do such a thing anyway.

There is definitely something about tilting at a windmill here; I'm just trying to think out of the box.
We have a problem with some ARIN members using address space that has been allocated to other ARIN members and we know it.
I think there will be a consensus that ARIN has absolutely no stick to make them stop, so what we need is a carrot.
Mine is not very palatable, but maybe it would be more attractive to ARIN members who squat by providing them an exit than to the IETF.

Do you have a better suggestion ? The squatting issue is new, what does ARIN do about it ?

> Nevertheless, there is no way for ARIN to unilaterally allocate 240/4 for any purpose.

I beg to disagree. It could be an experimental purpose. Sounds like the product of buffalo rumination, but policy is sometimes about untold nuances.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list