[ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 11:30 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: ARIN PPML
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
>
>>
>> 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.
>

And I'm not advocating that.

>
>>
>> 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 already e-mailed you this off list, maybe you didn't read it:

In your proposal:

"...	1.	If the organization does not currently pay ARIN
				fees, they shall remain fee exempt...."

You didn't say "fee exempt for a certain amount of time", nor did you
say "does not currently pay ARIN IPv4 fees they shall remain 
fee exempt for IPv4 only" both of which would have closed a huge hole.

>
>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.

How does the RIR's ceasing to track IPv4 that isn't under an RSA with them
post-IPv4 runout constitute a revoking of IPv4?

>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.
>

This isn't about reclamation.  This is about getting people that
aren't paying IPv4 fees to an RIR, out of the tracking system once
IPv4 runout has happened and a significant number of orgs have
switched to IPv6.

Specifically, my suggestion wouldn't even take place until IPv4
was effectively useless for new assignments - even if it was
available.

>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".
>

Except that this isn't a policy discussion since no policy has been
proposed and your not even discussing the items in the post anyway.

>Actually, besides the RIRs there are a number of other resources that
>track these, including, but, not limited to completewhois.
>

So go join the fringe at http://www.opennic.unrated.net/ and quit
bothering the rest of us.  How many ISP's do they have now?  7? 8?

If you really thought that someone else tracking these was a serious
problem you wouldn't be using that as an argument, because since an
alterantive would be available, it would make what the RIR's did a 
non-issue.  The only reason your bringing it up is because you know
it's a bogus argument.

>
>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.

Yup - and so, what requirement does an RIR have to continue to record
a legacy assignment?  They have no contract and as you point out they
aren't a government, so why do they have to keep doing it?

>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.

http://www.commonsensei69.org/damage.htm

"...Because the Amish travel only by horse-and-buggy, they cannot
travel on or across interstate highways..."


>> 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.
>

That is nothing more than setting up circular logic.  As long as the
RIR's track IPv4, those assignments are official, and anyone who has
one can claim that an ISP cannot deroute it.  (you claim they can file
a court injunctions over this kind of thing, well there you go)  So the
ISP's aren't going to deroute them.

Your saying the RIR's aren't going to consider the assignments obsolete
until the ISP's start derouting them.  Until they consider them
obsolete they will still track them.

So in summary, the RIR's will never stop tracking them and the ISPs
will never stop routing them.  So explain why again that a legacy
holder who pays no fees to an RIR for IPv4 would choose to go to IPv6
and start paying fees?

>>
>Doesn't matter.  Eventually, the legacy holders won't be able to get  
>an ISP
>to route their IPv4 addresses.

Then why are you so opposed to setting a date in advance that we will
all say this is going to happen?  If it doesen't matter, then why argue
against this?

Sounds to me like the boyfriend objecting to his girlfriend visiting
churches and looking at wedding packages, while at the same time insisting
that he's going to marry her... eventually.

Ted