> 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. Michel. _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
