[ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>michael.dillon at bt.com
>Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 3:51 AM
>To: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Getting aggressive about vetting
>
>
> 
>> My guess is that doing some very simple things like this would 
>> likely uncover a large amount of unused space.
>
>It's easy to be suspicious and it's easy to assume the worst in other
>people. It's easy to guess. But it's not easy to come to consensus on
>public policies.
>

It's easy to be optimistic and it's easy to assume the best in other
people. It's easy to guess. But I agree it's not easy to come to
consensus on public policies.

>When the atmosphere is poisoned with ungrounded suspicions, and
>unsubstantiated guesses it is even harder.
>

One bad apple will spoil a barrel.

If you have a group of 100 people, 99 of whom are law abiding citizens,
and 1 of whom is a criminal, that single criminal can do more monetary
damage by theft in a year than the other 99 can make in an honest salary
in a year.

People that make arguments like you are doing here are using an old
trick, you don't like a policy so you act like the instigation of
the policy is somehow a personal insult to everyone, or somehow
means the policymaker assumes everyone is a criminal.  Then you
use that straw man to argue the policy should never be put into
place.

Bullshit on that.

>The fact is that the network *IS* growing. Everybody's network is
>growing except for a few cases where companies are sliding towards
>bankruptcy. The fact of growth means more addresses are being used. This
>also means that if any company has some fat internally, address-wise,
>because of the telecom collapse, they are likely using it up as we
>speak.
>
>No amount of auditing will change that basic fact of growth which drives
>IPv4 towards exhaustion.

WRONG!

What drives IPv4 towards exhaustion is UTILIZATION of routable numbers,
NOT GROWTH.  These are two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.

If I add 10,000 users to the Internet behind a proxy server I
have NOT increased IP utilization on the Internet by 10,000 numbers.

>Even the best estimates of idle addresses
>tucked away here and there, only suggest enough to provide a few more
>months growth.
>

estimates are baloney until you take some action to try to prove them
out.

>It is not ARIN's job to solve the IPv4 exhaustion problem.

If it is within ARIN's power to alleviate IPv4 exhaustion then I
think it is an abrogation of their stewardship if they do nothing.

>ARIN has
>addresses and it hands them out to people who will *USE* them. ARIN has
>IPv4 addresses which are becoming in short supply, and it has IPv6
>addresses which are plentiful. Ask for what you want, and if ARIN has
>them in stock, you will get them. If ARIN's supply of IPv4 dries up,
>that is not an ARIN problem. 
>

Yes it is if the drying up happens faster due to ARIN's actions.

>However, there is one aspect of IPv4 exhaustion which does fall into
>ARIN's lap. That is education. ARIN could do more to publicise the fact
>that IPv4 supply is running low while at the same time IPv6 uptake is
>slow.

The very first operating system that Microsoft released with a
SUPPORTED IPv6 stack in it was Windows Vista.  This is probably the
biggest single reason for the slowness of IPv6 adoption.  The IPv6
stacks available for XP and 2000 were experimental, which means if
you had any kind of networking problem on your production network,
you had to uninstall them before getting any MS support.  That
kind of puts a damper on things.

Ted