[ppml] Buying time...

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Tony Hain
>Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 11:43 AM
>To: 'ARIN PPML'
>Subject: [ppml] Buying time...
>
>
>It is possibly my codec (though there are lots of lost/dup
>packets), but the
>arin.ram stream is very choppy so I am having a hard time following in
>detail.
>
>In any case, the discussion about 'buying time' to prepare for IPv6 is just
>a stalling tactic that will only make the eventual effort that much more
>painful. It is absolutely understandable that people want to have more time
>to prepare, but to do that they should have started earlier. Making the
>current processes more painful for new comers just so the
>lethargic can feel
>better is not 'stewardship'.
>

OK so you would agree that taking action to lengthen the time before
IPv4 runout is just buying time and stalling.  In other words, IPv4
runout should be allowed to proceed naturally without interference,
correct?

Then, if you are in favor of not interfering with the natural runout
of IPv4, then why do you find all of the previous interference in the
IPv4 runout date to be acceptable?

The IPv4 runout date has been artifically advanced by past practices
that artifically accellerated the consumption of IPv4.  At one time
you could get a /8 by just e-mailing someone and they wrote it down in
their black book.  And a lot of people did.  As a result, the consumption
of IPv4 was accellerated far in advance of what it's normal usage would
have been.

This so-called "stalling" is merely an attempt to reverse the past mistakes
and return to a "natural" runout of IPv4, which should really be taking
place
far in the future of what it is projected to now.

I find your position to be extremely inconsistent.  If you want IPv4 runout
to progress naturally, then logically ALL IPv4 assignments must fall
under a single, uniform allocation scheme.  That scheme today is the RIRs.
But all IPv4 assignments today are currently NOT under a single allocation
scheme.

The truth is that people have been interfering with the so-called "natural"
runout of IPv4 ever since allocations started.  Who are you to say that
the interference that is currently being proposed now - what you label
"stalling" - is any less morally right than the past interference in
runout that has taken place?

Frankly, I really believe your argument sounds suspiciously like:

"I've spent money and time on a crash course to prepare for IPv6 and by
God I'm going to make all the rest of you &*ck* spend the same money and
time preparing as I had to do so"

If the rest of us "lethargic" people
want to correct past allocation mistakes and thereby push forward the IPv4
runout date in advance of what it is projected to be, then I don't see why
anyone can make any reasonable objection to that.

In a way, those prepared for IPv6 who are arguing about IPv4 runout date
are equivalent to a bunch of men sitting around arguing about abortion.
It's nothing that will ever happen to them, so not a one of them have any
place in the discussion, and the people who it does affect would all be
better off if they would just get the hell out.

Ted