[ppml] Address Space versus Routing Slots

[Scott Leibrand]

Michael,

I think you're being unfair to Geoff, and doing us all a dis-service by
attacking his motives.  Geoff is as entitled to his personal (political?)
opinion as anyone else, and his participation on the ARIN public policy
mailing list (participation in which isn't restricted to the ARIN region,
BTW), doesn't constitute "interference".

Geoff has provided the ARIN community with a lot of good analysis.  If you
don't agree with his viewpoint on issues like this, fine.  But please
don't let your participation in the PPML push us toward a name-calling
flame-war.

-Scott

On 05/05/06 at 9:59am +0100, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

> > >depletion (at 11:11 GMT Dec 12, 2012 I assume :-)).
>
> > What appears to be obvious (well obvious to me at any rate) is that at
> > the time when an RIR can no longer meet allocation demands via
> > provision of unallocated address space (i.e. the RIR "runs out") then
> the
> > current policy framework also reaches its current end point.
>
> Balderdash!!!
> The current policy framework is not dependent on having
> a large supply of IPv4 addresses. And the policies of ARIN
> and the other RIRs are not static. They adapt to the situation
> as it evolves.
>
> > Exhaustion of the IPv4 unallocated address pool does not imply complete
> > unavailability of IPv4 address resources to industry players. i.e. the
> > exhaustion of the unallocated IPv4 address pool does not appear to imply
> a
> > forced IPv6 conversion onto the industry at that point in time
>
> Policy cannot be predicted like this. It is more like
> seismological evolution than biological evolution. It is
> entire possible, and I would say it is LIKELY, that at
> some point in the next 4 years, ARIN could pass a policy
> the stops all IPv4 PI allocations in the interests of
> conserving the remaining IPv4 space for ISPs. At the same
> time I believe it likely that ARIN will not accept new ISP
> applicants for IPv4 PA space but will only allocate that
> space to existing ISPs. That isn't exactly a forced conversion
> to IPv6, but it does make it clear that IPv4 is intended
> to be in a holding pattern, not on a growth curve.
>
> >    In the absence of the imposition of specific external control
> functions,
> >    a conventional economic response would be the emergence of various
> forms
> >    of trading markets in address resources.
>
> This has always been true of IPv4. Nothing new here,
> move along.
>
> > In conventional markets
> >    scarcity tends to operate as a pricing premium factor. Market
> behaviours
> >    would then imply an entirely different behaviour in terms of IPv4
> >    address distribution functions. Release of current address holdings
> >    based on conversion to address compression technologies could come
> into
> >    play within a market-based pricing dynamic.
>
> If you are unable to say this stuff in Plain English
> then I wonder why you bother to participate in the
> PUBLIC Policy Mailing List. If the PUBLIC can't make
> heads or tails of your sentences, then what is the point?
>
> >    The policy questions such a market dynamic would appear to raise
> >    include: What form of market regulation would be appropriate? How
> would
> >    it be applied? Who would apply it? Why would it be useful to have?
>
> Totally irrelevant here. ARIN does not impose market regulation.
> If you want the UN to take over the RIR system and ask national
> governments to impose regulation then why don't you just say so?
> But don't expect a friendly reception here because most of us are
> opposed to the type of government control that you support.
>
> >    In the area of RIR Allocation Policies, there are the policy-related
> >    questions of: What is the threshold point where the application of
> >    different IPv4 address allocation policies may be appropriate? Or is
> ?no
> >    change? a wiser course of action? Or should the RIRs establish
> >    ?strategic reserve address pools? Why?
>
> These are simpler questions. The threshold point is found when
> someone proposes a policy change to ARIN and that policy change
> makes it through the policy approval process. "No change" is a
> wiser course of action when no policy change makes it through the
> approval process. ARIN should establish strategic reserve address
> pools when a policy stating this makes it through the policy
> approval process. Why? Because the industry-driven bottom-up
> policy development process is BETTER than a bunch of academics
> sitting around and deciding what they should tell us to do.
>
> >    What about ?Equity?, ?Affordability?, ?Fairness? of access to address
> >    resources at a global level? And in what venue are such concerns best
> >    expressed? And how would they be expressed within the overall model?
>
> Overall model? Who says we need an overall model? As far as
> I can see, it is only the supporters of government regulation
> under the umbrella of a UN overall model who support this.
>
> >The above are my personal opinions, of course.
>
> Does this mean that APNIC did not send you here to mess
> with ARIN politics in order to gain support for your
> "one global model" viewpoint? Why should we believe that?
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>