[arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension]
I think Chris' message below summarizes the issue correctly, and I support a shared transition space policy.
On Feb 25, 2011, at 9:57 AM, 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