[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

> Yes.  There is a large installed base for whom migrating to 
> IPv6 may be painful (expensive).  Reducing the community's 
> total expense for operating their IP networks is a benefit to 
> the Internet community.

RED HERRING!

Given the fact that ISPs who implement IPv6 transit service
will also have to implement transition mechanisms such as
Teredo, 6to4, etc., there is no imperative for any part of
the installed base to migrate to IPv6 before they are ready.

The imperative today is for those organizations with steadily
growing networks at the heart of their business model (ISPs) 
to begin transitioning. Whether it is painful or not, they must
do it or die because network growth is fundamental to their
being.

If an ISP decided to try and avoid implementing IPv6 by getting
IPv4 addresses from other sources, they are simply backing
themselves into a corner and relying on their competitors to
operate transition mechanisms for them. This is a risky strategy
since the market segment who are willing to buy IPv4 network
access will be steadily shrinking. In addition, their existing
customers will begin to move away because the ISP is perceived
as being incompetent and at risk of hitting a brick wall.

>  This policy 
> proposal allows organizations to choose what's best for them, 
> rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all solution.

I disagree that this policy does what you say. In fact this policy
is trying to set up a market for buying and selling IP addresses.

Under current policy, an ISP who migrates infrastructure to IPv6
can return their IPv4 addresses to ARIN. And an ISP who is not
migrating can continue to apply to ARIN for more IPv4 addresses 
and receive the returned ones.

This is clear and simple and easy to understand. It is the way
that IPv4 allocation has always been done and is fully understood
by everybody who deals with IP networking. Any new policy like
the one proposed, simply muddies the waters and creates confusion.

--Michael Dillon