[ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 7:27 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: ARIN PPML
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
>
>
>I think it is a phenomenally bad idea.  First, once there's a 20%
>adoption
>rate on IPv6, there's enough momentum to make most of the other issues
>around IPv4 a "short-term problem".

So then, what's the problem with instituting such a policy if it's
all just going to be short term?

>Given the amount of time we have
>lived with the status quo, I don't see any advantage to taking action to
>change it at that point.
>
>Item 3 is especially bad because you've basically encouraged vigilante
>routing as a denial of service attack against legacy holders who choose
>to boycott the RSA.

So you are saying that legacy holders boycotting the RSA is a good thing?
How can a legacy holder boycott the RSA anyway, since they have to sign one
in order to get an IPv6 allocation?  Unless of course they intending never
getting IPv6 and just running IPv4 forever.

Oh I forgot, you were advocating that
legacy holders don't even have to sign an RSA to get IPv6.

I guess your true colors are showing Owen, you simply want the same
situation perpetuated with the legacy holders that they already have,
namely, that the legacy holders get any kind of numbering allocations for
free in perpetuity.

> Encouraging others to such an action (which would
>in most of North America be considered a violation of law) would subject
>ARIN not only to very likely civil liability, but, could even subject
>the
>corporation to criminal prosecution under some circumstances.  IANAL,
>but, I'm betting Steve Ryan would shoot this policy dead in a heart
>beat on the legal ramifications alone.
>

Choosing to not speak on an issue is not "encouraging"  You assume that
the only thing that is preventing so-called "vigilante routing" as you
call it from happening right now, is because the RIR's are keeping track
of things.

Here in the US (I really wonder if your in the US since you show such
ignorance of the law) it is illegal to take a horse and buggy out onto
an Interstate highway.  Why?  Because they are obsolete.  The governing
bodies
that govern vehicle registration (ie: the States) have no laws that cover
buggy registration for Interstate highway travel.  I am proposing exactly
the same thing.  IPv4 will eventually be obsolete.  The RIR's do not keep
track of Arcnet addressing schemes because that is obsolete - the Internet
has long grown beyond that numbering system.  When IPv4 becomes obsolete
the RIR's will have no business keeping track of IPv4 numbering either.

Fundamentally I am saying let's make that policy right now.  If you believe
that 20% IPv6 adoption isn't sufficient enough to call IPv4 obsolete, then
what about 40% IPv6 adoption?  If that's not enough, what about 60%
adoption?

Either you want the RIR's to keep track of IPv4 forever - in which case
the legacy holders could simply choose to never adopt IPv6 and the Internet
would be stuck in dual-stack mode forever - or you must agree that at some
point the RIR's stop keeping track of it.  If you do agree the RIR's stop
keeping track of it at some point, then what conditions must exist for that
point to be reached?

Ted

>Owen
>
>On Jul 3, 2007, at 2:37 PM, 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
>
>