[ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Thu Jul 5 14:30:08 EDT 2007
On Jul 5, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
>> -----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?
>
Because most of the other issues being a short term problem means
there's no need for such a policy. It doesn't mean the phenomenally
large problem set with this proposal disappears.
>> 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?
No. I'm saying that launching a denial of service attack against
them is an
even worse 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.
Signing an RSA for new IPv6 space _DOES_ _NOT_ subject your existing
IPv4 space to that RSA. Also, it is quite a viable option, actually,
for them
to run IPv4 and IPv6 dual-stack using 6to4 addresses in native IPv6 mode
which is permitted under the RFC.
>
> Oh I forgot, you were advocating that
> legacy holders don't even have to sign an RSA to get IPv6.
>
Please show me one place where I have advocated such a thing.
I have never advocated that and your accusations here are baseless
and misleading at best.
> 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.
>
Hardly. I just want to recognize what is and isn't possible and do the
best we can with the situation we have. There really is little point in
wasting the monumental amount of effort and capital that it would take
to (probably fail in the) attempt to revoke legacy IPv4 resources.
By the time all the court battles were done, the reclamation of
legacy IPv4 resources would probably not be of substantial benefit
to the community.
I have no desire to grant legacy holders any new assignments or
allocations without signing an RSA. In fact, my proposal specifically
required legacy holders who wanted to have their fees on IPv6
resources waived for up to 5 years not only receive that IPv6
resource under an RSA, but, also bring ALL of their existing IP
resources under RSA.
>> 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.
>
Marking the addresses as "up for grabs" and having a policy discussion
on record describing "up for grabs" the way you already have would
certainly hold up as "encouraging".
Actually, besides the RIRs there are a number of other resources that
track these, including, but, not limited to completewhois.
What actually prevents this vigilante routing is well behaved ISPs.
The number of not-so-well behaved ISPs is why so much of it occurs
anyway.
> 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.
>
The RIRs are not governing bodies. It amazes me that you are so
thoroughly
ignorant of the law. The governing bodies that govern what is or is
not allowed
on the highways are actual GOVERNMENTs. The RIRs are NOT GOVERNMENT.
Further, you can take a horse and buggy onto an interstate highway.
While you
can't do it in most places, your blanket assertion does prove false
if you look
at Pennsylvania, parts of Ohio, and a number of other rural areas
where the
Interstate replaced earlier roads and would render places
inaccessible to
horse and buggy if they could not traverse said interstate.
> 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?
>
What does it matter? What's the point of calling IPv4 obsolete at
the RIR
level? When ISPs start derouting it, it will be obsolete for any
meaningful
definition.
> 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?
>
Doesn't matter. Eventually, the legacy holders won't be able to get
an ISP
to route their IPv4 addresses. Of course, they can continue to use them
as 6to4 assignments in perpetuity, so, I suppose, we could argue that
instead of tracking the IPv4 addignments, the RIRs should track them
as 6to4 assignments, but, I don't really see any gain to that.
Owen
> 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
>>
>>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list