[arin-ppml] Proposal insanity --- an open letter
On 2/21/2011 3:57 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> John Curran wrote:
>> Tony -
>> Thanks for the thought-provoking input, as well as the
>> succinct summary of opposition to all the listed proposals...
>> The one surprising element is that several of the policy
>> proposals you list express similar concerns to those that
>> were alluded to in your soliloquy; are you certain that
>> none of the policy proposals would improve the situation
>> from your perspective? (I ask only because it is
>> predominantly via the policy development process that
>> changes in ARIN's address management practices occurs)
> Yes we need an active policy development process, but IPv4 is baked and it
> is time to stop stirring that dough ball.
John, Tony, Owen and All,
We don't know this. Yes, it would be best for all concerned if that
was the case.
But it IS important to keep in mind that there's a heck of a lot
of IPv4 out there already and assigned. And there is the potential
for proposals like NAT64 (which has WORKING code from the Ecdysis
project) that, IF adopted by a large number of ISPs, could seriously
muck up the IPv6 changeover pot.
I am only half-joking when I said Tony that your disrupting the
secret plans to get IPv6 deployed.
I know all the arguments that the big carriers are going to force IPv6
and all of that. Fantastic! We are IPv6 capable RIGHT NOW our "big
carrier" competitors (in our market) are NOT. I'd love for them to
start forcing IPv6. The day they start telling new users that they
can't use their Windows XP on their Internet connection is the day those
users slam down the phone and call us for service. We may tell them the
same thing but at least they have called us. And, we can tell them the
same thing and have coverage because they can't then run to our
competitor. They HAVE to upgrade. But, I'm not subscribing to the
Pollyanna principle today. If you think for one moment that I believe
my big competitors are going to allow those customers to slip away, your
The fact is that stacked NAT works with a lot of CPE's. One big
assumption a lot of people seem to be making is that a CPE like a DSL
modem that does NAT will not work if the outside IP address on the
WAN interface is a private IP address. That is flat out wrong. I've
seem them work. Granted the throughput often stinks but they work. And
the same goes for MANY of the SOHO "modemless" NAT routers.
An ISP that is in danger of running out of IPv4 can simply start
delivering connectivity via private numbers. Most of their Ma and Pa
Kettle users won't even notice. And for the few smart enough to come in
out of the rain and notice, the ISP can move them to their pool of
remaining IPv4 public numbers. And there are other tricks too. For
example an ISP can duplicate public IP's and NAT them in the router.
An ISP can put the same subnet in 3 different POP's and just translate.
The end user won't get a private IP on their WAN interface they will
get a public number - it's just a public number that isn't reachable
from the Internet. The ISP can just tell the user that their TOS
prohibits the user from running servers and hide the public network
behind a NAT. As long as the user can load web pages, most of them
won't care, they will think things are just peachy.
Yeah, I know it's not scalable. But since when in the computer
industry has a BAD, unscalable piece of dung idea that was popular with
the customers ever been abandoned? No, the usual practice is to shovel
tons of money at it until it kina-sorta-works. If that wasn't SOP then
we'd all be running Xenix.
Just remember that it is human nature to choose a small, immediate,
short term gain that carries a long term loss over a large, long term
gain that carries a small, immediate, short term loss.
Don't assume that IPv4 will go quietly into the sunset, is all I'm
There might be improvements in the
> proposal set, but the amount of effort needed to refine them and highlight
> the value is time distracted from real work. At the end of the day they make
> no difference in the outcome other than to delay its inevitable conclusion.
> In case it wasn't clear, my comments were directed at the set of proposals
> and the never ending discussion threads. They explicitly do not assume any
> positions are being taken by ARIN staff or AC members. The point being that
> if that set of proposals passed as a collective, the outcome would be as
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.