[ppml] Policy Proposal: Decreasing Exponential Rationing of IPv4 IP Addresses

[Dean Anderson]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Stretching IPv4 only means that people will delay the move to IPv6,  

This seems to be the unproven assumption and flaw in the IPv6 logic.  
Rationing doesn't "stretch" the lifetime of IPv4, and doesn't delay the 
move to IPv6.  IPv4 will continue after exhaustion of the Available 
pool.  Address space will be returned or reclaimed, and allocations will 
eventually resume.  Exhaustion in this case just creates a bump in IPv4 
operations.  That bump, and consequences of the bump, can be avoided. 

However, there is no case where that bump greatly improves the
transistion to IPv6.

Just the opposite.  Your scheme seems to be desperate and makes me 
more suspicious of IPv6.  If IPv6 could stand on its own merits, you 
wouldn't need to try to wreck IPv4 to promote it.

However, your attempt at wrecking IPv4 will fail, because IPv4 will
survive, albeit with disruption and other more nasty problems that are
entirely avoidable.  This is just an irresponsible attempt at
destruction, by people trying to promote IPv4.

I'm going to have to look into IPv6, to find out what's wrong with it,
that you would need to disrupt Ipv4.


> My assumption of what would happen when we run out (in the absense of  
> new policies) is that if a request comes in for more address space  
> than is available, the request is denied A request for a smaller  
> amount of address space that can still be accommodated would be  
> honored. If you want your policy to work like that, you should say  
> that in the proposal.

Well, this happens with or without rationing.

> With rationing, there are opportunities to try again, with running  
> out, when you're done, you're done. 

????  You can try again and again now, too. 

> In my opinion, hoarding isn't possible to harmful degrees with simply
> running out because only the organizations that already use large
> amounts of address space will be able to get large amounts of address
> space, so the address space is going to end up with those
> organizations whether they try to hoard or not. The only issue would
> be some organizations trying to hoard while others play by the rules.

???? No difference whether rationing or not. 


None of your arguments make any difference under rationing or not 
rationing. So, they don't have any relevance to rationing.




-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000