[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Howard, W. Lee [mailto:Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com]
>Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 7:33 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: ARIN PPML
>Subject: RE: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown
>
>
>> Well, the lawsuit your referring to - Kremen VS Arin, available
>> here: www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf has enough 
>> huge flaws o drive a truck through.
>
>http://www.arin.net/media/releases/dismissal-release.pdf
>The Court recognized ARIN's authority in the stewardship of IP
>numbering resources, and found that everyone should play by the
>same rules.
> 
>> >I would support a policy proposal that directed ARIN to 
>> actively try to 
>> >reclaim address space that was no longer in use, regardless of what 
>> >terms it was assigned/allocated under.
>> 
>> Well, good because that is what I am in favor of as well.
>
>Excellent.  Will one of you please write such a proposal?
>

Question, you said in 8/3/04 that implementation of the annual
maintainence fees for legacy assignments that was adopted in
3/22/04 had been deferred until billing integration within ARIN
has taken place.

Has this integration taken place or not?  If not, what else needs
to be done before it will take place?

If it has taken place then how many of the legacy assignments
that were billed annual fees have not yet paid?

>
>> You have to simply make a decision, are we going to try 
>> reclamation or not?
>
>It's not deciding time until there's a proposal.  This is discussion
>time.
>

I know, that was a rhetorical question.

>> If we are, then the next decision is are we going to try 
>> reclamation based on monetary adjustments, (changing fees) or 
>> by setting policy?
>
>Minor note: policies are set by the public, fees are set by the
>members.
> 
>> I do not favor setting fees as a tool for changing IPv4 
>> allocations.  I am much more in favor of setting policy then 
>> if people violate the policy, suing the pants off of them.  
>> This does have a requirement that the organization be run by 
>> someone with balls.  Unfortunately, I am in a minority 
>> because most people subscribe to the belief that all we have 
>> to do is adjust pricing and people will do what we want - 
>> like magic! As a result if a reclamation policy does get 
>> passed, it most likely will be a limp-handed politically 
>> correct poofball that will make all kinds of naieve 
>> assumptions that organizations will fall all over themselves 
>> to return unused space just because they think it might cost 
>> a bit more money to hold on to it.
>
>This paragraph might contain some content, but it's hard to tell.
>
>I think it says:
>You would support a (as yet unsubmitted) policy of aggressive
>auditing and reclamation of IPv4 address space, enforced by legal
>action.  You suspect, however, that the majority of the public
>would not support such a policy.
>

That is correct.  I have big doubts that a more agressive auditing
and reclamation of IPv4 space policy would be supported by ARIN
members until such time that ARIN would be unable to supply
allocations on request, (ie: IPv4 runout) particularly after
responses on this list.

The one thing that I have come even more firmly into belief though
after reading all of this discussion is that it will be a huge mistake
if IPv6 adoption by the Internet core is not done before IPv4 address
runout, but instead was done months or years after IPv4 runout as
a result of political/economic pressure.

In other words, we can have it the easy way or the hard way.

The easy way would be to get agressive about IPv4 reclamation now,
which would push back the deadline for IPv4 runout.  Then after a
year or so of more agressive reclamation, then set a IPv4 end-date
that all RIR's agree would be the actual end of addresses (with the
understanding that this is nothing more than a best-guess).  Then
set a conversion date that would be 6 months before that date, of
conversion of the global BGP table to IPv6.

The hard way would be to do nothing until the actual end of IPv4
allocations, then see if the free market will step in and do some
sort of IPv4 brokering thing, then let the Internet's global
BGP table sort of morph/evolve into an IPv4/IPv6 table then
eventually become all IPv6.

In the absense of political will or agreement for the former the
latter is what is going to happen by default.  The sad thing is that
it seems like a lot of people WANT the latter to happen.

TEd