[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown

[MAEMURA Akinori]

Stephen and all,

| > Perhaps one part of a "address reclamation" proposal might be
| > that the number registries are required to contact the address
| > holders once a year and get a new justification.
| 
| Similar things have been proposed in the past, but it never seems to go 
| anywhere since it's assumed most of the waste is in the pre-ARIN space and 
| there's still no definitive answer whether ARIN has any right to revoke such 
| assignments/allocations, nor do we have anyone paying fees on such blocks 
| which indicates at least a minimal interest in keeping them.
| 


That is one of our anticipation.  If reclamation is easy enough
and the amount of the IPv4 space to be reclamed could be 
estimated, we might have been proposed a reclamation policy 
first.  Frankly speaking I have no idea how easy or difficult
the reclamation process would be, and we were just very 
pessimistic.


Again I want to emphasis that setting termination date is

neither for unnecessary artificial stop of IPv4 address 
circulation but to clarify until when IP Carriers can count 
on the current pace of IPv4 address supply from their registry,

nor assuming only IPv6 for the alternative solution but we
suppose IP Carriers might choose NATed Internet as well as
going to IPv6, since they are the players who are responsible 
for technical implementation to construct and run the Internet 
backbone networks.


Regards,
Akinori





In message <01c201c7673d$31cd90d0$3b3816ac at atlanta.polycom.com>
   "Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown"
   ""Stephen Sprunk" <stephen at sprunk.org>" wrote:

| Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net>
| >>Microsoft peers with lots of networks (especially via 8075).
| >>They do appear to use 3356 transit for certain prefixes but
| >>that may not be out of necessity, and even those prefixes are seen
| >>by many peers directly.
| >>
| >>They also have much more than just a single /16.
| >
| > Yes, I know.
| >
| >>Much of it is assignments made by ARIN under modern policies
| >>(including justification requirements).
| >
| > Ah, yes.  Now, please explain how exactly ARIN continues to make
| > sure that these requirements are met?
| >
| > We got space allocated from ARIN a number of years ago.
| > Never once since then have we ever gotten a phone call from
| > ARIN asking to re-up our justification.  Nor has anyone that I have
| > ever heard with space allocated.  As long as you pay your bill
| > every year they don't talk to you.
| 
| They verify the requirements are met before another assignment is made. 
| There is an unstated assumption that nobody's requirements will ever go down 
| substantially.  That's obviously wrong, but one must balance the cost of 
| fixing it vs the cost of not fixing it.
| 
| > Perhaps one part of a "address reclamation" proposal might be
| > that the number registries are required to contact the address
| > holders once a year and get a new justification.
| 
| Similar things have been proposed in the past, but it never seems to go 
| anywhere since it's assumed most of the waste is in the pre-ARIN space and 
| there's still no definitive answer whether ARIN has any right to revoke such 
| assignments/allocations, nor do we have anyone paying fees on such blocks 
| which indicates at least a minimal interest in keeping them.
| 
| >>They may ask for additional space in the
| >>future.  I have no doubts that their space is efficiently utilized.
| >
| > And there be the problem.  From the Internet's point of view, if a
| > company like MS gets a /19 allocated and puts it ENTIRELY
| > behind it's own firewalls, with no access in to those addresses
| > from the outside, then what use is that to the Internet?  Not a
| > damn bit.
| 
| That's within policy.  They're encouraged to use private space, but if they 
| claim they can't, they can get public space.  If you don't like it, and 
| don't agree that addressing uniqueness is a Good Thing(tm), then put up a 
| policy proposal to eliminate that policy provision and see how many people 
| agree.
| 
| Also, don't think that "behind the firewalls" means that no other company 
| sees it.  I've worked with several customers that NAT to the public network, 
| but their private connectivity to business partners uses the real 
| (non-RFC1918) addresses.  For a company the size of Microsoft, that's a 
| significant possibility.
| 
| > If a situation develops in 5 years where ARIN is telling people they
| > cannot allocate any IPv4 space, while at the same time you have
| > large organizations like Microsoft sitting on hundreds of
| > thousands of IPv4 numbers that are unreachable from a
| > traceroute on the public Internet, I forsee a huge political outcry
| > that will basically destroy ARIN's authority to allocate numbers.
| 
| Hardly.  Someone will float a policy that reflects the new reality, and it 
| either gets accepted or not.  If not, ARIN simply won't have any numbers to 
| allocate regardless of its authority.  I think that'll be sufficient 
| motivation to get such a policy passed when that day arrives -- but I'm not 
| holding my breath that it'll be done before collapse is truly imminent (and 
| by that I mean 4-5 years from now).
| 
| S
| 
| Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
| CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
| K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov 
| 
| 
| _______________________________________________
| PPML mailing list
| PPML at arin.net
| http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
| 
|