[ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Heather Schiller [mailto:heather.schiller at verizonbusiness.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:07 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: ARIN PPML
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
>
>
>
>I can't tell if you are just eliciting feedback on an idea,

Sorry, I thought the phrase:

"What do you all think of the following proposal idea"

made that clear.

>or you want to
>make this into a formal policy proposal?

There is no point if there's no will among members to grapple with
this issue.

As we all know there's been much discussion on this list for the last
year or so (probably much longer) about what to do about the upcoming
IPv4 runout.

It appears to me that one of the fundamental dichotomies is that
everyone on this list gives tremendous lip service to the idea that
they want everyone to transition to IPv6.  IPv6 is the answer I
keep reading.

Yet, whenever someone proposes anything that might kick-start the
transition (because frankly to argue that the transition is happening
now is rediculous, at least in the global routing table) they
water it down to be worse than useless.  And the few who propose anything
with real teeth get shouted down.

Everyone wants to transition to IPv6 but...

nobody is willing to force any IPv4 holders to give up anything

nobody is willing to raise fees to make it cost effective to
transition to IPv6

nobody is willing to tell anyone they cannot buy-and-sell
IPv4 assignments in a kind of huge ebay sale

nobody is willing to give the boot to a bunch of freeloading
legacy holders that haven't contributed a dime in fees to keep
the entire assignment mechanism going - including funding for this
very mailing list I might add.

and on and on and on.

So I thought, why don't I propose a proposal that would ONLY TAKE
EFFECT AFTER IPv6 TRANSITION HAS HAPPENED.

In other words, I'll make it as easy to follow and as least
controversial as possible

You cannot argue against it because it only codifies what is going
to happen AFTER THE MESS IS OVER.

Kind of like saying let's schedule the Kumbiya song around the
campfire once every nation has given up war.

My feeling is that if the community CANNOT EVEN AGREE WHAT THE POST
IPV6 INTERNET IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, then screw everyone.  Because
we are all just kidding ourselves that we are ever going to get any
kind of policy other than an endless series of useless resolutions
exhorting everyone that it Would Be A Real Good Thing To Switch.

How can you find out how to get there if you don't even know where
you want to get to?

>
>
>  If you just want some feedback.. I can do that too:
>
>1) What is the goal of this policy?
>

Since nobody can agree how to get TO an IPv6 world, let's stand
the problem on it's head.  Go as far forward as you want and
work BACKWARDS.

>2) Policy term?  temporary, permanent, renewable? (would be hard to undo,
>if people start using it..)
>

Permanent

>WRT the goal of the policy - this seems to reclaim some legacy space to
>create more 'private' address space, that is, address space that is not
>globally unique.
>

No, not at all

'Reclamation'  ASSUMES THE IP SPACE WILL BE REUSED.  I am saying this,
why can't we agree that when IPv4 is OVER that the RIR's will GET OUT
OF THE BUSINESS OF KEEPING TRACK OF IT.

The obvious place to start is with the people who aren't even paying
for the RIR's to track it to begin with!  What do we owe them once
the rest of us are in the IPv6 world?

Are you arguing that in a post-IPv4 world that we STILL WANT TO BE
ASSIGNING IPv4?

WHAT IS THE POINT to transitioning to IPv6 IF WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE
TO ASSIGN IPv4?

I might as well ask if I'm an ISP in year 2010 when IPv4 runout has
happened,
and I need IP addresses, why BOTHER GETTING IPv6?  I might as well just wait
for
a bit until some IPv4 is reclaimed - then get that?  I won't have to
change my network as much - save quite a bit of money there.

>If the goal is to be able to recover legacy address space, because of
>impending IPv4 depletion, and to be able to extend the life of IPv4 - this
>isn't going to get you far.

NO.  The OPPOSITE

The RIR's have NO authority to dictate what people broadcast into the
global BGP table.

20 years from now when IPv4 is over and done with, NOTHING THE RIR's can
do can stop someone somewhere from advertising IPv4.

So, what are we as a community to do?

Let's say that in year 2030, 100% of the original IPv4 organizations
are now dual-stacked with both IPv4 and IPv6 advertisements.  Some of
them are forward looking and are starting to abandon their IPv4 network,
they tell ARIN "we aren't paying fees on that anymore, you can reclaim it"

What are we going to do with THAT space?  Make it available for reassignment
to the few slow-as-slug organizations that want to KEEP USING IPv4 and
want MORE of it EVEN THEN?

are the RIR's going to get into a situation where FOREVER they are going to
track IPv4 usage?  Forever and ever?

If you don't agree with this then put your money where your mouth is
and name a date.  Just like the bride said to the reluctant groom -
if you want to get married, name a date.  Or, name some CONCRETE things
that are going to happen before we do it.

So, OK, maybe 20% is too harsh.  Maybe we should wait until 50% of
the Internet has switched over to IPv6 before throwing the freeloaders
out the door.

If you won't agree to a number, or you won't agree to a date, then
your just giving lip service to the idea that we are ever going to
switchover to IPv6.

>If the space is 'up for grabs and usable by
>any organization' - you are essentially creating more RFC1918 like space.

Exactly.

>The point of having registered address space, is so that you know who is
>using it, and it remains globally unique, which is often important when
>you start connecting networks together, and most commonly when you want to
>route it in the "global internet"
>
>If OTOH, you want to create more RFC1918/IANA reserved address space, my
>question to you would be, do we need it?
>
>If OTOH, you want to scare legacy folks into signing an RSA.. again my
>question would be why? and there might be better ways to go about this.
>

Heather, I'll answer those 3 questions from you with a question of my own
to you:

WHEN will the RIR's STOP keeping track of IPv4 allocations?  When 100%
of the Internet is switched over to IPv6?  If so, then why not change that
to when 90% of the Internet is switched over to IPv6 - to convince the
remaining 10% that they need to drop IPv4.  And if you agree with this,
then why not when 80% is switched over - to convince the remaining 20%
to switch over.  And if you agree with that, what about when 70% are
switched over?  and so on?  I think you get my drift?  What percentage
of people have to leave the IPv4 building before your comfortable
turning off the lights and saying the IPv4 party is over?

Because I will tell you a great secret.  we will NEVER REACH that 100%
UNTIL YOU HAVE TURNED OUT THE LIGHTS.

As long as the RIR's are tracking IPv4 utilization - people will use
it on the Internet.

And as long as people are using it, there will not be much incentive to
STOP using it.  And IPv6 transition will be STALLED.

Classic catch-22.  How do you think it's ever going to be broken?

Ted

>--Heather
>
>On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>  What do you all think of the following proposal idea:
>>
>> 1) When all unallocated IPv4 has been exhausted, the RIR's shall
>review IP
>> utilization yearly and shall determine when
>> more than 20% of IPv4 holders are dual-stacked and advertising IPv6
>>
>> 2) When the 20% point has been passed, all RIR's shall remove all
>> whois and reverse IP records for IPv4 blocks that are assigned to
>> organizations which have NOT signed an RSA with an RIR for that space
>>
>> Legacy holders can sign an RSA at any point beyond this time and
>> gain whois and reverse assignment records back with an RIR
>>
>> 3) IPv4 space not recorded in an RIR shall be considered "Up for Grabs"
>> No RIR shall assign it, and no RIR shall retain recording
>assignments of it
>> except that which a legacy holder decides to bring under RSA.
>>
>> 4) "Up for Grabs" IP space will be usable by any organization needing
>> IPv4 numbering.  None of the RIR's will provide any sort of mediation
>> between competing organizations wanting to use the same IPv4 space,
>> except for that provided for in #2
>>
>>
>> Ted Mittelstaedt
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>