[ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

[David Conrad]

Hi,

On Aug 15, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 1) Return.  IPv4 runout will cause some organizations to begin the  
> process of switching over to IPv6.

Doesn't this assume the reason people haven't been switching over is  
because IPv4 is available?  I thought the problem was that IPv6  
doesn't provide sufficient benefit to outweigh the costs of  
deployment.  Further, because there is insufficient perceived benefit  
in IPv6, customers aren't asking for it from their ISPs nor are they  
demanding IPv6 as a feature in the products those customers use to  
gain access to the Internet.  As a result, there isn't support in  
large parts of the infrastructure (e.g., CPE routers, network  
management, customer provisioning, etc.) nor have content providers  
been willing to invest in IPv6-ifying their content provision  
infrastructure since there are no customers using IPv6 to gain access  
to that content.

> Besides, return of IPv4 is essential to nipping any "ebay Inc trade  
> of IPv4" numbers in the bud, which most people agree is something  
> we want to do.

This seems to at odds with your previous statement.  If the reason  
people aren't switching over to IPv6 is because IPv4 is available,  
then wouldn't you want to encourage hoarders/speculators to buy up  
the IPv4 addresses to take them out of circulation?

> 2) Sheer growth.  A lot has been claimed how the legacy assignments  
> are a drop in the bucket.

There have been approximately 100 legacy /8s assigned.  This is more  
than the total allocations made to all the RIRs, combined.

> Well, I will ask the question - if every IPv4 allocation ARIN makes  
> from this day forward to the date of IPv4 runout in 5 years or so  
> went straight to a hoarder, then wouldn't that mean that as of IPv4  
> runout date if all hoarders were to immediately start selling their  
> hoards, wouldn't that really only constitute just a 5 year supply  
> of IPv4?

Probably not.  If ISPs were faced with a lack of IPv4 addresses they  
will adjust their behaviors in order to cope.  That adjustment would  
likely impact the consumption rate.  The concept of a "5 year supply"  
pre-supposes a particular consumption pattern.  The assumption that  
address consumption patterns will remain constant in the face of run  
out is just silly.  You can make the argument that consumption will  
increase due to "land grab" behavior (by hoarders, speculators, or  
the Men In Black) or you can make the argument that rationing and  
increased use of NAT will reduce consumption, but assuming  
consumption patterns will remain consistent with historical patterns  
is unlikely to match reality.

> 3) History.  The history of technology change has been that as soon  
> as something new is introduced, people start getting afraid of  
> being left behind and they will jump on the new thing, even if the  
> old thing works as well or even better.

This does not appear to have impacted the uptake of IPv6.

Regards,
-drc