[ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 5:52 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Public Policy Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional
>Requests
>
>
>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?

Yes

> I thought the problem was that IPv6
>doesn't provide sufficient benefit to outweigh the costs of
>deployment.

That too.

>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.
>

All that is true.  But you see, we aren't in an IPv4-runout status
now, so people feel they still have a choice between what to deploy.

>> 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?
>

NO.  The reason is that the IP numbers have no value to a hoarder unless
they can sell them.  So the hoarder is going to obtain as much as he
can then as soon as IPv4 runout happens he's going to try to sell as
much as he can as soon as he can - since the value of IPv4 will be
highest right after runout.  This will simply have the effect of
delaying IPv6 switchover for the rich organizations that can afford to
buy from hoarders.  In other words, hoarding does not really take IPv4 out
of circulation, since the hoarder has to see it put in to circulation to
get paid.

And the side effects would be terrible.  Almost certainly it would prompt
court cases and the like that could possibly produce caselaw in some
jurisdictions
of considering IP addresses property, thus ARIN might lose control of the
assignment authority.  That is why we would be foolish not to do what
we can to make the environment for "ip v4 sales" to be very difficult
for a hoarder to operate in.

>> 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.
>

I keep waiting for someone to point this out when we get into these
legacy holder flamefests.  Sigh.

>> 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 utilization requirements of the RIR already causes this as an
incentive.

>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.

That was just an example.  I could have substituted "X year supply"
then had to go into the detail of explaining that this means the
timeperiod is variable due to factors, etc.

>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.
>

That wasn't the point.  I was making the point that no matter what you
do, whether you stretch out or shrink the time before IPv4 runout,
the fact is that runout will happen eventually and behaviors of
ISP's will change.  Even if hoarding and IP sales come into play,
all it will do is put off the day of reckoning.

Your arguing in effect that if people eat right and exercise that
they will put off the time of their death so the focus of people
should be eating right and exercising, and they shouldn't ever bother
thinking about writing a will.

>> 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.
>

IPv6 really hasn't been introduced.  IPv6 is currently nothing more
than a set of technical specifications without an implementation for
the MAJORITY of operating systems in current production use.

Once we see all Windows operating systems that are older than Vista
drop down to 10% of the production installs in current use, we can
consider that IPv6 has been introduced.

Ted