On 8/19/11 3:42 PM, "SM" <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >At 09:10 19-08-2011, The IESG wrote: >>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider >>the following document: >>- 'IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space' >> <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt> as an >>Informational >>RFC >> >>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >>ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-09-16. Exceptionally, comments may be > > >The draft only mentions an applicability and justification for Shared >Transition Space and references >draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-00. While the policy fits >under RIR community processes, it does not fit under allocations made >for technical specifications. Publishing this document on the >grounds that the ARIN wants it is not a good enough reason. Will >ARIN be "donating" the /10 IPv4 address space to IANA for it to make >this allocation? This proposal reached ARIN consensus (2011-5), and has been recommended for adoption to the ARIN board. The ARIN BoD has indicated that it is willing to reserve a /10 if asked to do so by the IETF/IANA. > >The draft mentions that: > > "Network equipment manufacturers MUST NOT use the > assigned block in default or example device configurations." > >As the IPv4 address block is not specified in the document, the above >requirement cannot be followed. The expectation that the IPv4 >address block will only be used by Infrastructure Providers is >optimistic. This will be supplied by IANA in consultation with ARIN. ARIN has not pre-announced what block might be used, so we need to wait until IANA gets back to us later in the process. >RFC 5735 covers Special Use IPv4 Addresses. This >document should update the BCP. Once we get an assignment from IANA/ARIN, we'll look into updating RFC 5735. > >A proposal similar to this one was discussed in a V6OPS meeting in >Asia. If my reading is correct, it did not gain consensus. The >proposal gets discussed in North America in >OPSAWG and it gains consensus. Not quite right. We first brought this proposal to OPSAWG in Maastricht, and then updated it for Beijing. From the opsawg (79) minutes: > Straw poll: more people in the room supported the draft than didn't, > perhaps 2:1. About half the room expressed an opinion. Because IANA was down to its final /8, we were asked to also present in v6ops, which did not reach consensus for or against. Feedback from v6ops was to approach the RIRs for space, rather than IANA, which we did. > BTW, this draft contains only 220 >lines, including boilerplate and it has five authors. How is this relevant? Jason, Victor, and I have been working on this for over a year. Chris L and Marla joined the author team with significant contributions when we substantially updated the draft prior to IETF79. Chris > >Regards, >-sm > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf