[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org]
>Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:31 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown
>
>
>At 6:48 PM -0700 3/14/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>If ARIN makes a public statement that it is looking for proposals
>>to stave off the day that IPv4 allocations will run out, then
>>I'll be right there.
>
>"Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit 
>corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops 
>consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the 
>Internet through information and educational outreach."
>
>In accordance with the above ARIN Mission Statement,
>ARIN seeks policy proposals consistent with responsible
>management of the IPv4 address space.
>


OK, John,

  Then please state here, is it the official position of ARIN
that the definition of "responsible management of the IPv4 space"
EXPLICITLY implies the following:

1) That IPv4 space means "all routable IPv4 space on the Internet"
including that which has not been assigned to a number registry?

2) That ARIN has the authority to revoke either complete or partial
IPv4 address assignments for reasons other than failure to pay the
bill for IP registration?

3) That address assignment criteria EXCLUDES organizations that
have no need of the addresses for their own network operations,
or for customers that are connected to their networks?



My concern is that if condition #2 isn't acceptable, that any proposal
that aims to extend the life of IPv4 on the Internet is going to be
quashed.  Because, implicit in the idea of "IPv4 conservation" is going
to be the idea that some IPv4 addresses that have been assigned in the
past under certain justifiction that was valid at the time the assignment
was made, are no longer being used and the justification that was used
to assign them is no longer valid.

I would assume as a given that any organization that has a large
assignment, or series of assignments, is going to find it easier to
merely continue to pay the bill then to go to the trouble of inventorying
what they really are using.  Also, organizations might be uncomfortable
with having a large contiguous allocation broken into smaller 
contiguous allocations, then having an allocation out of the "middle"
of the contigious allocations reassigned to someone else.  In other
words, any attempt to "take back" assignments from organizations
that are current on their bill is going to be met with resistance
even if the organization willingly admits they aren't using the numbers
themselves.

Ted