[ppml] IPv4 exhaustion - so what?

Thus spake "David Williamson" <dlw+arin at tellme.com>
> At the moment, however, I'd like to see more feedback on some
> of the existing policy proposals.  There's been nearly zero
> feedback or discussion on all but one or two of *twelve* that are
> on the agenda.  I can't imagine that we'll just rubberstamp ten or
> eleven of them, and spend the rest of the time on just a couple.
> Surely someone out there is either for or against some of the
> current proposals.

Okay, I'll take the bait.

2006-7: I voiced my disagreement with this proposal when it was introduced, 
based on a lack of proven need for the change and the likely detrimental 
effects it would have on the DFZ -- not that ARIN controls the DFZ, but we 
have a long history of considering the effects of policies on it...

2007-1, -2, -3: These seem very straightforward, documenting what exists.  I 
don't see any reason for debate; they truly are rubber-stamp items.

2007-4: Again, there's not much room for debate; all policies are "interim" 
in some sense, and this language is a hold-over from the draft global IPv6 
policy.  We need a lot more clean-up proposals like this, which will also 
likely not cause much debate as long as they're only changing the wording 
and not actual policy.

2007-5: I disagree with the supposed lack of implications of this policy. 
/48 should be enough for all but the largest sites, and those sites most 
likely will be getting direct assignments from ARIN, not from LIRs.  If LIRs 
are allowed to assign excessive amounts of space to end users with no 
oversight, that will increase the amount/size of allocations ARIN needs to 
make to LIRs.  Absent an actual policy on what justifies an assignment 
greater than /48, we should continue to require ARIN oversight of these 
assignments.  Since no such policy has been submitted, I must be against 
2007-5.

2007-6: I honestly have no opinion on this policy; I'll let the folks who 
actually live in the DFZ figure it out.

2007-7 through -11: These appear to be requests from the ARIN staff, either 
directly or indirectly, and are clarifying existing policy that is currently 
difficult to implement or documenting unwritten policies, not making any 
substantive changes that would require much debate.  If anyone disagrees 
with them, I invite them to comment, but I don't see much to disagree with.

2007-12: I think my disagreement with this proposal, and the reasons why, is 
well-documented by now :)

S

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov