[governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD

[John Curran]

On Jan 29, 2010, at 1:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> ...
> Would it not be fair, then, to allocate and reserve blocks of the same size
> for the military of each nation state so that we have a level playing (sic)
> field for network-centric warfare? Or would we rather create a couple of dominant
> nations and then aim for a network-centric warfare non proliferation treaty?

At present, the Internet number resource allocation framework is 
needs-based. This framework was established decades ago by the IETF 
and is documented as a Best Practice in RFC 2050.  This means that 
Internet numbering policy is generally free of social or political 
judgements, as such matters already have other fora to be addressed. 
I leave it to the reader as to whether or not this policy framework 
has been successful in facilitating growth of the Internet.

On pleasant side effect of a needs-based framework is that that the 
smallest of entities can actually receive the largest allocations 
if their technical need can be documented to be valid.  Given that 
we're discussing IPv6, in which there is more than ample space 
available, attempting to define some artificial political criteria 
to otherwise limit valid documented requests for address space does 
not benefit any party, and would greatly complicate what is presently 
a rather simple matter for all parties of all types to receive IPv6
Internet number resources.

> I remain suspicious that the shoulders of ARIN were lent on not too gently
> in the reservation of  42,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
> addresses (or whatever the figure is). I can't see that the allocation would
> have been made otherwise.

You have not only the right to be suspicious, but to some extent 
a responsibility:

“There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an 
 advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as 
 against despots - suspicion.” - Demosthenes

Yet under the circumstances, I can only refer you to the applicant
for more information about their request and justification. As I 
have been Chairman of ARIN from inception till last summer and the
President and CEO since, and I can state with authority that the 
only pressure being applied between USG and ARIN is ARIN's gentle
but successful reminders to the DoD of the community's IPv4 address 
needs and the obligation to return addresses which might otherwise
go unused. 

As community-led and funded organization, ARIN has no dependency on 
the US Government, and hence had little difficulty explaining and 
receiving cooperation on the appropriate documentation needed in
order to proceed with their IPv6 request. If you can point to any
other organization in the Internet administrative space which has 
operated with comparable freedom from political interference, I'd
be interested in hearing about it.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t