[ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:50 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: ARIN PPML
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>What's the point of doing that?
>

Your asking in effect, what is the point of winding down IPv4?  If there
is no point of winding down IPv4 then what is the point of winding ip IPv6?

>> Specifically, my suggestion wouldn't even take place until IPv4
>> was effectively useless for new assignments - even if it was
>> available.
>>
>I'm not convinced this assertion is accurate.
>

OK.  Are you saying that IPV4 will NEVER become useless for new assignments?
Explain yourself!

>>> 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.
>>
>Sorry... If this isn't a policy discussion, it doesn't belong on this
>mailing list.
>This list is for the purpose of discussing and developing ARIN policies.
>Whether the policy has been proposed or not, this _IS_ a policy
>discussion.
>You can have a policy discussion without a formal policy proposal.
>

People do it all the time on this list, introducing all kinds of side
issues.  Such as the topic that seems to come up all the time that people
who want legacy holders to start paying their way are jealous, nasty
and so on.  Even though that has not been on any policy I've seen.

>>
>> 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?
>>
>I believe they made an agreement to do so with IANA as part of the
>process
>of their formation. Other than that, I suppose, perhaps, they don't
>need to,
>however, there's also no gain to anyone for them to stop doing so.
>

OK, well here is the heart of the issue.  Are you saing then that the
RIR's should continue to keep legacy IPv4 assignments recorded in
perpetuity?

What happens when an org switches over to IPv6 and decides to tell
an RIR that they don't want their IPv4 anymore and take it back and
stop billing them for it, but they are going to keep their IPv6 in
force and continue to pay the bills on that.

Right now the RIR pulls the whois and makes the IPv4 available for
assignment elsewhere.  But, what happens in the future when everyone
on the Internet has switched to dual-stacks and so nobody wants to pay for
IPv4 assignments any longer - and companies are turning them in
right and left.  All except the legacy holders - since they aren't
paying for them, they won't have incentive to inform anyone they
aren't using them any longer, since that will not affect any billing
they are paying.

is the RIR supposed to keep the legacy IPv4 in it's whois forever?

>I don't accept your premise.  I firmly believe that ISPs will begin
>charging more and more for IPv4 connectivity and eventually will
>terminate IPv4 services on an ISP by ISP basis.  I believe that
>when there is no longer a critical mass of IPv4 connectivity, IPv4
>will rapidly fall into disuse on the public internet and that at that
>time, the RIRs can put obsolescence policies in place to sunset
>the tracking of IPv4 registration data.
>
>An IPv4 legacy holder who wants to talk to the rest of the internet
>will move to IPv6 because he will have to in order to talk to the
>rest of the internet.  It will be the ISPs that provide this forcing
>function, however, and not the RIRs.
>

What possible incentive do the ISPs have to stop using IPv4 unless they
are paying for the addressing?  Legacy holders are not paying thus where
is the incentive?

>>
>> 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?
>>
>Because the date should be decided on a case-by-case basis between
>the ISP and the address holder, not by some RIR policy decision without
>any visibility into the real world of what is happening.

Then IPv6 switchover will never happen.

> Because there
>is no benefit to doing so, only cost.
>

There is cost to any possible future.  The future you are advocating - that
IPv4 be considered viable for time out of mind beyond the end of IPv4 runout
is the most costly of all.  It will promote a buying-and-selling market and
make the growing networks bear the brunt of the costs while the legacy
holders
reap windfalls.

Ted