[ppml] Buying time...
alh-ietf at tndh.net
Tue Apr 24 17:53:07 EDT 2007
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >-----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
> >In any case, the discussion about 'buying time' to prepare for IPv6 is
> >a stalling tactic that will only make the eventual effort that much
> >painful. It is absolutely understandable that people want to have more
> >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,
My point was that stalling does not equate to preparation. If people would
actually use the additional time to smooth out the transition, then I would
have no problem with it. History shows that if we did extend the date
through a policy change, we would be having exactly the same discussion with
the same lack of preparation as we approached that new date.
> 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?
You assume I was ...
> 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
> of IPv4 was accellerated far in advance of what it's normal usage would
> have been.
Having been one of those people that received/approved/rejected those email
requests for the Dept. of Energy, it was not as arbitrary as you make it out
to be. You might be surprised to know that there were issues with routing
table size in the ancient past... ;) So working within the block sizes that
the stacks of the day were designed to use, on a case by case basis the
trade-off was made between 'waste of space' and 'waste of routing slots'.
> This so-called "stalling" is merely an attempt to reverse the past
> and return to a "natural" runout of IPv4, which should really be taking
> far in the future of what it is projected to now.
The 'natural' rate would be much faster than it is now, if it were not for
the artificial bias to force entities into private space. We are seeing that
in the compound growth of consumption since 2000, despite the widespread
availability and use of nat.
> I find your position to be extremely inconsistent. If you want IPv4
> to progress naturally, then logically ALL IPv4 assignments must fall
> under a single, uniform allocation scheme. That scheme today is the
> But all IPv4 assignments today are currently NOT under a single
You logic does not follow. Essentially you are arguing for fairness over the
entire space rather than policy for managing the remaining pool.
Again, I am not opposed to changing policy if that resulted in a smooth
transition. Having watched this saga though, it is clear that the only way
we will get traction is to have the exhaustion event clearly in everyone's
> The truth is that people have been interfering with the so-called
> 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?
I would not call the design/deployment of 1918 & nat to have a particularly
moral basis, though it clearly interfered with the burn rate of IPv4.
> 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"
No, it is based on the observation:
Most Network Managers will not ask for IPv6 until they run into a problem
getting IPv4 space. It is simple human nature to ignore a problem until it
becomes a crisis.
Extending the date does not change the observation.
> If the rest of us "lethargic" people
> want to correct past allocation mistakes and thereby push forward the
> runout date in advance of what it is projected to be, then I don't see
> anyone can make any reasonable objection to that.
There were no allocation mistakes as such. Applying current technology and
policy to historical events is not a useful exercise. Again, you are arguing
for fairness, and the real issue before us is managing the remaining space.
> 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
> place in the discussion, and the people who it does affect would all be
> better off if they would just get the hell out.
While I have been accused of spreading 'doom & gloom', my only point is to
raise awareness that the pool exhaustion is approaching. It would be
completely inappropriate to sit quietly and let the event happen, yet there
continue to be people that would rather not hear it. From my perspective, if
people don't want to hear, they can choose not to listen. At the same time,
they have no valid reason to complain that 'they didn't know'. This is
particularly an issue for the RIR's, because if people don't know until
after the fact they would not be responsibly managing their assets.
More information about the ARIN-PPML