[ppml] alternative realities (was PIv6 for legacy, holders (/wRSA + efficient use))

Howard, W. Lee Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com
Thu Aug 2 17:29:05 EDT 2007

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 4:44 PM
> To: Howard, W. Lee
> Cc: PPML
> Subject: Re: [ppml] alternative realities (was PIv6 for 
> legacy, holders (/wRSA + efficient use))
> [My one post to PPML today, forgive me if this is deemed 
> repetitive or "undemocratic"]

I'm honored.

> If you posit the unlikely universe in which IPv6 isn't 
> deployed when the IPv4 free pool runs dry, which option would 
> be best for ISPs:
> a) telling new customers to go away
> b) obtaining address space via "non-traditional" means from 
> one of the holders of the "legacy" O(100) /8s?

c) assign IPv6 space and provide a transition mechanism.
d) put them behind NAT.
e) give them a smaller assignment than they could 
previously have justified and help them use it well.

I'm going out on a limb and say that the consensus is that
a market would be some degree of ungood.

If so, then maybe there are ways to prevent it, stall it, 
or make is less ungood.  Stalling long enough is equivalent 
to preventing.  There's a Soft Landing proposal that 
attempts to fill the gap, and several others.  Combined with 
"How can we prevent/stall/mitigate?" should be "How can we 
reduce demand for IPv4 addresses?"  These are not rhetorical: 
all are invited to respond.

> I guess I'm skeptical that those holders of the "legacy" 
> O(100) /8s will voluntarily return their unused address space 
> to ARIN (or other appropriate RIR) out of "enlightened 
> self-interest". 

I'm not sure we've asked them what it would take to get them
to use address space more efficiently and return the rest.
Um, "Hey, legacy holders!  What would it take to get you to
use address space really conservatively and give the rest

I have been much more opinionated here than I usually am.  I 
want to be very clear that I can't say what other Board 
members think, and I'm always open to changing my mind.
This message, and this disclaimer, are terser than the first


> Rgds,
> -drc
> On Aug 2, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] 
> On Behalf 
> >> Of Cliff Bedore
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 1:37 PM
> >> To: PPML
> >> Subject: Re: [ppml] alternative realities (was PIv6 for legacy, 
> >> holders (/wRSA + efficient use))
> >>
> >> With regards to MIT and or/other /8s that are "privately held", is 
> >> the internet better off getting those turned in and split up which 
> >> adds to the routing table or letting the private holder become a 
> >> default ISP/mini IANA/ARIN in effect with a /8 aggregated 
> address and 
> >> keep the table smaller?
> >
> > I think the Internet is better of with ARIN allocating 
> based on need 
> > than it would be with other organizations allocating based on cash.
> >
> > You asked the question--what do you think?
> >
> >> Cliff
> >
> >
> > Lee
> > _______________________________________________
> > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy 
> Mailing List 
> > (PPML at arin.net).
> > Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> >
> >

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list