[ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Rich Emmings
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:44 PM
>To: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy
>Proposal
>
>
>I'm jotting this off quickly.
>
>My first reading of the proposal before it was re-petitioned, was
>that it's
>adaption would be more likely to cause a run on the bank right after
>adoption, speeding exhaustion, not holding it up.
>
>Driving a car off a tall cliff is general a bad idea; not doing is
>the alternative.
>
>
>I might investigate voluntary recovery of unused numbers as a better first
>step.  Email postage is still cheap, and most people probably haven't been
>personally asked.
>
>ARIN maintains a registry of unique numbers for those who require
>uniqueness; there is no requirement the numbers show up in the
>routing table.
>For those that gloom about the size of the global routing table,
>this could
>be construed to be a good thing.
>
>I have a list of 10 /8's which are not seen in the global tables.  I might
>ask those folks first, what they'd be willing to do.  Larger, order /16's
>might be the next order of business.  ARIN records not updated in
>10 or 12 years.
>
>As I understand it, there some action taking towards cleaning out
>the swamp
>at one point, by trading for address space.  /8 holders (ala
>Stanford) might
>be able to trade down.
>
>I'd not force the issue until I'd see what asking did.
>
>Renumbering consumes the resources (time, money, etc) of the enitity.  It
>might be worth offering up some IPv6 space in lieu of, and outside of the
>current allocation minimums -- Any size of IPv4 smaller than what
>you have +
>an IPv6 block, might be a not unreasonable offer. Some people
>might be able
>to take advantage of this, others won't be able to.
>
>A co-worker & his wife ran around the house one day checking the seat
>cushions and change jars, and came up with $600 in loose change. Maybe
>there's no loose change out there in IPv4 Land, but has any one
>asked anyone
>to check under the cushions.
>

That is a genius analogy, I wish I'd thought of it.  It makes me
think of a great proposal title:

"Collection efforts on IPv4 loose change"

Much better than the one I was considering, "IPv4 reclamation efforts"

Do you think that a proposal that listed a series of steps starting
wtih a collaborative approach and switching to an Atillia the Hun
approach if the collaborative approach fails would work?  Or should it
be all collaborative, or all Atilla?

Ted