[ppml] Policy Proposal: Decreasing Exponential Rationing of IPv4 IP Addresses

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> With IPv4 we don't know how many people are on the waiting list and
> how big their allocations are.  So in a waitlist situation there is
> no disincentive to attempting to get IPv4  Since you don't know what
> is going to happen you might as well try waiting.

This is a good point.  It might be useful to publish the wait queue.

Of course, while waiting, you might as well use the time to see if you
can do your application without additional IP addresses. Twiddling your
thumbs is up to you. Your competitor is probably trying to solve the
same problem, though.

> The extra waiting just uses up ARIN time and resources.

I don't see how waiting takes up ARIN resources unproductively. The
_waiting_ doesn't use any ARIN time or resources;  ARIN staff don't have
to sit on hold with you.

> >hard limit in any case.  Once the ARIN staff realize they have a hard
> >limit, they'll naturally look harder at documentation.  This doesn't
> >have to be specified.
> >
> 
> ARIN already looks hard at documentation, it's kind of insulting to
> imply that they don't.

Some people think that ARIN staff doesn't have enough time to look as
hard as they'd like.

> What do you want ARIN staff to do?  

Now they have time to look as hard as they want.

> And in 20 years when IPv4 runout is imminent, people will use your
> same logic to justify even sillier restrictions on IPv4 and the
> Internet will not yet be switched over.

I doubt that.  But it isn't up to me to make IPv6 more attractive. But
in intervening 20 years, I suspect we'll dredge out Netware, SNA, ISO,
or something if we can't get IPv6 going.

> Are you the guy that likes the doctor to rip the bandage off real
> quick or do you like them to pull it slow as they can?  Sounds like
> you like your pain stretched out.  Most people don't.

Try telling that to the heroin addict.  Ever wonder where the Hospitals
get the heroin to give to addicts?  I do.

How do you want your Oil supply handled?  Do you want to just run out
one day? Surprise! All the gas stations are closed. For good.  As you
see the last guy locking up shop, you say "What the hell!!".

And he says: "Well, 6 months ago we asked and no one wanted rationing.  
They just wanted to get this over and done with."  With that, he hops on
his camel and rides away.

And so you go home and freeze to death in your oil-heated home, in the
dark, with no (oil-produced) electricity, and no cable TV, and no
Internet. Of course, the American Indians finally get back the Black
Hills of South Dakota...Its all good.


> Let's get this thing over and done with and go on to the next thing.

Ah. Well, running out of IPv4 won't get it 'over and done with'.


> Your coming from the approach that it's a Good Thing to stretch out IPv4.
> With the implication that there is something wrong with IPv6. 
>  What?  Why do we want to delay IPv6 deployment?  What are we waiting
> for?  Once IPv4 runout happens, Windows Vista deployment will be
> penetrated enough to make IPv6 switchover easy enough.

I've made no such implication.  IPv6 isn't waiting for anything from
IPv4. IPv4 runout has very little relevance to IPv6.  Running out of
IPv4 won't make it any easier to go to IPv6.

Hitting a hard limit on IPv4 is expected to cause a set of crises that
are easily and prudently avoided by rationing.

Rationing IPv4 also ramps up the incentive to move to IPv6 smoothly.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000