[ppml] Buying time...

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf at tndh.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:53 PM
>To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; 'ARIN PPML'
>Subject: RE: [ppml] Buying time...
>
>
>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
>> >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?
>
>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.
>

That is rediculous.  History shows a lot of things but it has not ever
been a reliable guide to use to prognosticate dates of future technological
events or how they were dealt with by society.

In the pre-NAT days if you used that argument you would have reasonably
concluded that runout would have already occurred by now.

Even if all past date extensions of IPv6 caused discussion with no action,
which is very debatable, you cannot use that to predict what will happen
if it's extended again.  And in any case, why did Microsoft put IPv6 support
into Vista, if it wasn't for actions resulting from IPv4 runout discussions?

I think you are greatly underestimating the amount of time that is needed
for
things to happen.

And in any case, your argument is circular - you claim you have no
opposition
under conditions that you claim are impossible - thus having no opposition
is impossible.  In short, despite the flowery language, you aren't adding
anything here.

>>
>> 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 ...
>

No, I am saying that if you found it acceptable and your finding that
future interference is unacceptable, then your completely inconsistent.

If you find past interference to be unacceptable then what is the
objection to undoing that interference?

>>
>> 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.
>
>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'.
>

So what?  That is like saying that because 60 years ago the decision in
the United States to allow every last man, woman, and child to have the
God-given right to own an automobile and drive it as much as possible
was right at the time, that Global Warming today that resulted from it is
not a mistake.

There is such a thing as a technological decision that appears good at
the time to turn out in retrospect to be horrible.

Your essentially arguing that extending IPv4 runout is a horrible decision.
How do you know that NOT extending it won't also be a horrible decision?

>>
>> 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.
>
>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.
>See: http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/IPv4-delegated-per-RIR.pdf
>

Well, there you have it - NAT is a perfect example of sanctioned
interference in IPv4 runout rates.  And despite the engineers wringing
their hands over it, a side effect of NAT has been the poor man's firewall.

Do you really think the Internet wouldn't be overrrun with viruses today
if it wasn't for widespread deployment of NAT?  After all, Microsoft
did put "classic" non-NAT-based firewalling in Windows.  It's called
Windows Firewall and it's active by default.  But that classic firewalling
approach proved to be worthless compared to the NAT in the little
cable/DSL routers and such.  Sure, the crackers are figuring their way
around that, but it's given us years of breathing room.  So, on the scales
I would say that not all about NAT has been bad.

>>
>> 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.
>
>You logic does not follow. Essentially you are arguing for
>fairness over the
>entire space rather than policy for managing the remaining pool.
>

Yes, because fairness is all that the RIR's are based on.

Do you want the governments and courts involved with the RIRs?

If the RIR's are arbitrary and capricious
that will invite lawsuits, ones that will be won.  And, when runout
does happen, if an RIR gets sued for not allocating IPv4, they are
going to have to show that they are not being discriminatory or they
will be court-ordered to produce numbering.  Claiming "well we can't
touch all this -old- numbering out there that somebody assigned
out of a notebook years ago" ain't gonna cut it.  There will have to
be evidence that the allocation process is applied
uniformly over ALL IPv4 users, regardless of what was done in the
past.

Your kind of making the argument here that because Joe Blow bought
100 acres 50 years ago when there were no pollution controls, that
he can go ahead and dump his sewer into the stream that runs across
his property, like he did 50 years ago, because he has some sort
of right to be able to do this since he was able to do it 50 years ago
when he bought the land.  It does not work that way in the legal
sphere.

If you toss out fairness, your gonna get yourself slapped down.  Besides,
it's the right and moral thing to do.

>Again, I am not opposed to changing policy if that resulted in a smooth
>transition.

circular reasoning, would you just drop it, please?

>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
>view.
>See: http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/IPV4-pool-combined-view.pdf
>

I am not arguing that, but there are just as effective ways to publicize
something than by deliberatly being cruel and hurting people.  That is
the argument that we want to reduce killings so when we hear the young
girl down the street being murdered in broad daylight and screaming her
head off, we should do nothing so that it makes a splashy headline
the next morning, so we can get traction on fighting crime.  After all,
1 death is justified because it's going to prevent 20 more deaths,
eh?

>
>>
>> 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?
>
>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.
>

Your arguing over the rightness of the decision, not on the rightness of
being able to make the decision.  Those are two different arguments.
I'm not arguing that NAT was a good or bad decision.  I am arguing that
because things like NAT were permitted in the past, that you cannot now
have any basis to argue that they should not be permitted now, other
than that the specific thing being contemplated is bad.

You can perhaps say that raising or lowering fees is good or bad but
you cannot morally argue that we shouldn't have the ability to raise or
lower
fees.

>>
>> 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.
>

It is also human nature that not all humans pay attention to human nature.

It's human nature to sit on your ass watching TV but there's still people
jogging on the sidewalks - a minority, that, but they are there.

Your essentially screwing the handful of network managers who are taking
action but just need more time, on the basis that they are outnumbered by
the lazy slob network managers that won't do anything until a fire is lit
under them.

>>
>> 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.
>
>There were no allocation mistakes as such. Applying current technology and
>policy to historical events is not a useful exercise.

Well, what exactly do you think that the invention of IPv6 -is-?  Seems to
me nothing more than the application of current technology to a historical
event - the invention of IPv4.

IPv4 isn't big enough, so we solved it by inventing IPv6.

IPv4 isn't being fairly allocated so we solve it by going back to the people
with IPv4 they aren't using and taking it back.  If the IPv4 runout date
gets advanced, well then happy side effect for some people, eh?

>Again, you
>are arguing
>for fairness, and the real issue before us is managing the remaining space.
>

No, the REAL issue is managing ALL the IPv4 space.  The term "remaining"
assumes all past allocations are good, which they are not.  You can look
at the BGP table and compare it to the list of allocated IP and see 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.
>
>While I have been accused of spreading 'doom & gloom', my only point is to
>raise awareness that the pool exhaustion is approaching.

Good, do so!  But do not do so by being logically inconsistent and unfair.
Doing so turns you from a statesman into nothing more than a pundit, and
we have enough of those already.

>It would be
>completely inappropriate to sit quietly and let the event happen,

I agree.

Ted