[ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>michael.dillon at bt.com
>Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:57 PM
>To: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting
>
>
>> People that make arguments like you are doing here are using an old
>> trick, you don't like a policy so you act like the instigation of
>> the policy is somehow a personal insult to everyone, or somehow
>> means the policymaker assumes everyone is a criminal.  Then you
>> use that straw man to argue the policy should never be put into
>> place.
>
>What policy? Did someone propose a policy?
>
>All I have seen is a lot of rambling discussion.
>
>> What drives IPv4 towards exhaustion is UTILIZATION of
>> routable numbers,
>> NOT GROWTH.  These are two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.
>
>Minor details. The network is growing which leads to growing utilization
>of addresses. We still won't get anywhere by auditing folks to find
>their secret hordes of addresses. Those hordes won't be big enough to
>stave off exhaustion, because the growth continues.
>

You don't know that.  And why are you so opposed to the idea of trying?
So what?  Maybe you are right and there isn't enough unused IPv4 space
out there.  How exactly does it affect you then if some people try to
reclaim the unused space and come up empty handed?

At least if someone tries, and fails, we will KNOW that there's not enough
available unused space.  That is much better than off-the-cuff guesses.

>> >Even the best estimates of idle addresses
>> >tucked away here and there, only suggest enough to provide a few more
>> >months growth.
>
>> estimates are baloney until you take some action to try to prove them
>> out.
>
>But when the action is very costly, a prudent steward will opt for
>alternate approaches that cost less.
>

It is going to be costly no matter what you do.  Switching to IPv6 is
going to be costly.  Reclaiming IPv4 is going to be costly.  Doing nothing
is going to be costly.

The question is where and when.  We simply do not have enough installed
devices that are IPv6 compliant at the current time to easily/cheaply switch
the Internet over to IPv6 3-4 years from now.  Too much still will have to
be replaced.  If an attempt is made to reclaim IPv4 and after
easy/reasonable/cheap efforts to do so fail, then at least you or I or
anyone can go to our customers and say we know the party is over and your
going to have to renumber, or put some kind of proxy/translator into place,
and when they ask how do you know, we can hand them some results, not
some armchair smoke-puffing and hand-waving.

If it succeeds and gets us another 5-10 years of numbers, by then
we will be much more ready.  And more importantly, the groundwork will
be laid for the RIR's to enforce adherence to the RIR's for allocation
of IP numbers.

>> >It is not ARIN's job to solve the IPv4 exhaustion problem.
>>
>> If it is within ARIN's power to alleviate IPv4 exhaustion then I
>> think it is an abrogation of their stewardship if they do nothing.
>
>Nope! It simply is not ARIN's job to do this. It isn't allowed by ARIN's
>charter and under the laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of
>Deleware, the ARIN Trustees have a fiduciary duty to ensure that ARIN
>does not overstep its charter. In addition, IPv4 exhaustion is a global
>issue that should be addressed in international fora such as the IETF or
>ICANN.
>

As John said, "policies for management of IPv4 address space
not yet assigned to an RIR are likely to be global in nature
and hence require global policy adoption.   Start with a
proposal in one RIR, and repeat as necessary..."

Catch-22.  ICANN isn't going to accept a proposal until a RIR adopts
it, and according to you, an RIR cannot adopt a global proposal.  In
other words, your making a convenient excuse for doing nothing.

Fortunately, others have seen through this kind of logic, which is why
John said what he said.

Why don't you respond to John's direct statement that ARIN can adopt
this kind of policy, posted to the list yesterday, instead of my saying
"if" about it.  What's a matter, afraid you will get shot down?

Ted