[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-15: Authentication ofLegacyResources

[Robert Bonomi]

> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:45:16 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Dean Anderson <dean at av8.com>
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-15: Authentication ofLegacyResources
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>
> > within a couple of years, IANA will have no more space to give ARIN
> > and the other RIRs, and shortly after that moment, ARIN and the other
> > RIRs will have no more space to give ISPs and LIRs.  the common name
> > for this is "IPv4 pool depletion" and there is no controversy or
> > disagreement as to the inevitability of that depletion.
>
> There is no data associated with these claims. As Lord Kelvin said, 
> "your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind".  

As a quotable being once said, "you have sense-organ cluster all jammed up
ventral orifice."

The raw data in question is published by ARIN, and the other  RIRs, on a
*DAILY* basis, and is readily available for those who know where to look for it.

> Can the ARIN staff report on the past rate of delegation (in total IP
> addresses and in total blocks, year by year, and the current year month
> by month?

Why do you think ARIN staff should do extra work for you that you apparently 
are incapable of reading from data they, and all the other RIRs, already 
publish?

Why are you making requests for material that they have already prepared
and published?  

Do you know they have _already_ prepared and PUBLISHED ot just the raw data
but nice 3-d bar charts as well, for everything you asked them to 'report on'?

Are you really that badly informed, or are you merely maliciously ignoring
the public record in a futile attempt to confuse the matter with the 'big
lie'?

> Of course, everything runs out eventually. However, there are things
> that we can do to prolong that time as long as possible.
>
> 	Delay in Assignment Processing of Requests
> 	Smaller Assignments
> 	Tougher requirements
>
> If ARIN (and IANA) adopt a policy of measuring the rate of delegation
> against the expected depletion time at the current rate, and adjust the
> above parameters so that depletion will not occur for, say, 10 years,

That sounds good. but even the hand-waving you egage in below proves that 
depletion -will- occur.  Under your 'proposal', you yourself _admit_ it 
will occur every year.

> then we will see an exponential decreasing rate of delegation, but we
> will never run out of address space.

Hmmm.  Like a spammer, re-defining the terminology to mean what he wants it
to mean.

If, _at_any_time_, people are unable to get the addresses they meet the 
requirements for, then one *has* 'run out' of those addresses.  Regardless
of whether it is 'temporarily' (in the case of a 'term quota' exceeded), or
'permanently' (in the case of 'address-space exhausted').

And, of course, everybody  who has thought about the matter for more than
30 seconds has figured out that making 'smaller assignments' has absolutely 
*NO*EFFECT* on the rate of consumption -- that *all* it does is make the
requesting party make additional requests _more_often_.

"tougher requirements" is a nice-sounding smoke-screen, but it has only a
very temporary and transient effect. This is because requests are already
restricted to that which is necessary for a fixed forward time frame.  
Requiring a higher utilization factor introdues a hiccup in the rate of
requests  but that is all.

scoreboad:
   out of three 'bright ideas' to prevent 'running out' of addresses,

   1 introduces 'artificial' unavailability of addresses even sooner
   1 has absolutely no effect
   1 might 'delay the inevitable' for a few weeks to a month or two, at best

that looks like "three strikes, you're out!" to me.

>                                       Certainly not in the next 20 or 30
> years, after which time we can expect that IPv6 is the preferred
> protocol, and we will never run out of IPv6 space.
>
> No more than the expected amount of IP addresses can be assigned in a
> given year.  Pending requests would be delayed to the next year, and then 
> assigned in the next year's policy to achieve 10 year depletion.

I see. You assert that running out of the 'current time-period' quota, and 
having no more available to assign that period is not 'running out ' of the
AVAILABLE supply at that time.