[arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension]
Nice summary, Chris.
Perhaps this policy needs one additional feature: If it passes, CGN
can not be included in "need" (for additional space) or in their existing
usage (if they've already deployed it.) This would push anyone deploying
it to use the allocated /10 rather than using their own private space.
Also, in view of the proposal that if less then 10 organizations
use it, or when usage drops below 10, that it revert to the normal
unallocated pool, ARIN would have to keep track of usage. While doing
this, perhaps they should also keep track of how much is being used
and encourage orgs to use starting from the beginning of the address
range (rather than random chunks in the middle.) Then, if it turns
out that hundreds of orgs are using this space, but none are using
more than a /14, the reserved space could be shrunk and the remainder
returned to the free pool. But this may just be deck-chair
Finally, if the usage is popular, but eventually shrinks, that would
most likely be a sign of wide-spread IPv6 single-stack adoption, and
wasted or unused IPv4 would no longer be important to anyone.
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> I think we may be over-complicating a fairly straight forward issue here.
> There are few facts facing us:
> 1) IPv4 addresses are quickly approaching maximum utilization.
> 2) There are basically two ways to continue to grow the Internet
> beyond this threshold:
> A) Implement IPv6
> B) Further oversubscribe IPv4 addresses (LSN)
> 3) Although 2-A could preclude the necessity of 2-B, it is likely that
> IPv6 deployment will take too long to avoid the need for LSN of some
> flavor in many/most growing networks.
> 4) LSN breaks stuff (with varying definitions of both breaks and stuff)
> 5) Overlapping the LSN and CPE NAPT ranges increases this brokeness
> We end up with two questions to ask:
> 1) Is there a problem that can be solved through policy?
> 2) Is the cost of the policy change greater or less than the benefit
> of the change?
> My opinion is that this proposal appropriately addresses the issue
> defined in fact 5 above.
> So, what is the cost? We lose one /10 that could have been assigned or
> allocated as unique space for a handful of orgs (or potentially one
> large one). But we gain a shared space that can be used by all ISPs
> with need for it, the world over. The proposal appears to provide the
> greatest good.
> Another argument against this policy (and a large part of why it
> failed in other forums) is that having this shared space available
> will encourage folks to deploy LSN, or to use LSN for a longer period
> of time. This is a lot like saying that putting blankets in cars will
> encourage folks to sleep in their cars. The fact is that while that
> may make sleeping in your car a bit more comfortable, sleeping in the
> house is still going to be the preferred option. Only folks who must
> sleep in their cars (deploy LSN), will. Everyone who can avoid it,
> will - regardless of some blankets.
> The only argument against that I see remaining sounds a lot like
> "well, I might be the guy who gets part of that /10 for myself..."
> If there are other arguments that I have missed, or if I am
> miscalculating the cost of this proposal, I would love to be
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539