Skip to main content

Response to ARIN's request for guidance regarding Draft Policy ARIN-2011-5

Document Type IAB Statement
Title Response to ARIN's request for guidance regarding Draft Policy ARIN-2011-5
Published 2011-06-22
Metadata last updated 2023-08-09
State Active
Send notices to (None)

ARIN’s Request

ARIN’s request for guidance on  draft policy ARIN-2011-5.

From:  John Curran
To: IAB Chair Bernard Aboba & IETF/IESG Chair Russ Housley
Subject: Request for IAB/IESG guidance regarding Draft Policy ARIN-2011-5
(Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:32:10 +0000

As noted in the communication of 10 April 2011 (attached), the ARIN community
has been working on a Draft Policy (ARIN-2011-5, Shared Transition Space for
IPv4 Address Extension) which would result in the allocation of a /10 IPv4 address
block for facilitating transition technologies. I am writing to provide an update on
the status of this Draft Policy and to seek guidance from the IAB & IESG regarding
appropriate next steps.

After significant deliberation both online and during the ARIN Public Policy meeting,
the ARIN Advisory Council (which consists of 15 members elected by the ARIN
community) met in late May and recommended adoption of the Draft Policy by the
ARIN Board. I have made to the ARIN AC as well as the community at large that
since the proposed reservation is for shared use, it arguably could be considered
as a specialized address block in accordance section 4.3 of RFC 2860, and would
need to made under the guidance of IAB and IESG.

On June 10th 2011, the ARIN Board of Trustees took the recommendation to adopt
the Draft Policy under advisement, and directed me to consult with the IAB and IESG
regarding any issues in adopting this Draft Policy.

I am hereby requesting that the IAB and IESG consider this matter, and provide any
guidance regarding recommendations for moving forward as deemed appropriate.
I am available to discuss the matter by phone at the IAB and IESG's convenience;
please let me know via email if this is desirable at any time.

Best wishes and thank you for your consideration,

John Curran
President and CEO

cc: Nate Davis, ARIN Chief Operating Officer

Reference: Email of 10 April 2011

The April 10 email:

Date: April 10, 2011 7:27:43 AM EDT
To: Olaf Kolkman  Cc: Russ Housley , Nate Davis
Subject: ARIN early notice to IETF regarding "Draft Policy ARIN-2011-5 
         (Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension)"
Olaf, Russ -

As I mentioned in Miami, there is a policy proposal in the ARIN region
which would result in a /10 block of IPv4 being reserved to facilitate IPv4
address extension. In particular, this block would not be allocated or
assigned to any single organization, but is to be shared by Service
Providers for internal use for IPv4 address extension deployments
until connected networks fully support IPv6. Examples of such needs
include: IPv4 addresses between home gateways and NAT444
translators. The policy text and related information may be found here:

As this is a reserved block for technical purposes which is not assigned
to any specific ISP or end-user, it resembles an "IANA reserved" block for
technical purposes, and as such raises some concerns about having an
RIR make a determination in this matter. In particular, ARIN staff made
comments on the policy to the effect:

"In keeping with the spirit of RFC 2860 with respect to the assignment
of specialized address blocks, ARIN Staff will consult with the IANA and
the IAB regarding implementation of this draft policy."

This policy has not been adopted, but will be up for consideration at
this weeks ARIN meeting in San Juan PR. If well-supported by the
community and recommended by the ARIN Advisory Council, it will
go to last call and then the ARIN Board for adoption. I do consider
the policy proposal to be in scope for ARIN's consideration, as the
address space would be put to constructive use collectively by the
Service Provider community, but could equally see how it could be
viewed as a matter which has typically been handled within the IETF.
ARIN has sufficient IPv4 reserves to implement this policy if adopted,
but we will formally ask at that time for guidance from the IETF before
implementing. This most likely would occur in the June timeframe.
I expect that you will want to share this message with your colleagues
and that is encouraged, and to the extent that you'd like to share your
views at any time, they would be most welcome.


John Curran
President and CEO

cc: Nate Davis, ARIN Chief Operating Officer

The IAB’s response

From: Bernard Aboba
Sent: Wed 6/22/11 1:37 PM
To: John Curran

Dear John,

The IAB has reviewed your request for IAB/IESG guidance regarding Draft
Policy ARIN-2011-5. We would like to submit the following for the ARIN
board's consideration.

== A Procedural Issue: ARINA 2011-005 and RFC2860 section 4.3 ==

The IAB honors and values the division of responsibilities as
documented in RFC 2860 section 4.3. That section forms the basis for
Unicast address allocation via ICANN through the RIR system.

The second paragraph of that section excludes 'assignments of
specialised address blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks)' from
that IANA-> RIR model, leaving such blocks as the responsibility, and
under the authority, of the IETF.

Policy proposal 2011-005 is not a regular proposal in the sense that
it adheres to Unicast space. In contrast, it allows for an allocation
of addresses for special and global use very similar to, and almost
indistinguishable from, RFC1918 local addresses. Because of the impact
beyond the ARIN region the management (i.e. creation
and subsequent changes) of such reservation should be global and RFC2860
puts the management responsibility with the IETF.

The IAB believes that the adoption by ARIN would be in conflict with the
provisions in RFC2860 and would set a bad precedent: Setting aside
special addresses should be done within the existing process, i.e. by
the IETF.

It is our expectation that the IAB and the ARIN Board are in general
agreement about this interpretation.

== Re-reviewing the Operational and Technical merits in the IETF ==

The IAB is aware that earlier variations of the proposal have been brought
to the IETF. However, there was very little support and some strong
opposition to them, consequently, the IETF never reached consensus to
approve them.

If there is consensus for 2011-005 in the ARIN region we would be
happy to work with you to resubmit the proposal to the IETF and, as
usual, have the IESG judge consensus. This would include our reaching
out to other RIRs to have members of their community provide input on
this proposal. Clear support from the various RIR communities might
bring new insights into to the IETF, producing a level of support that
was not present with the earlier drafts.

Obviously the IAB cannot commit to the outcome of that process, but we
can work with you to make sure the proposal gets maximum exposure
within the IETF and the broader community.

[for the IAB],
Bernard Aboba
IAB Chair