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

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net>
>[ I said: ]
>>One must always remember the law of unintended consequences
>>when trying to regulate people into something they won't like and
>>probably won't feel is just.
>
> People don't like the fact that IPv4 is ending, period.

IPv4 isn't ending; it's approaching the inherent limits of growth.  This 
proposal seeks not only to artificially move up the date that happens but to 
try to make IPv4 unusable after that date even if addresses are reclaimed by 
or returned to the RIRs.  That is _not_ the same as what will happen if we 
let IPv4 hit the wall on its own.

> You cannot get around this.  They don't like the fact they are going
> to have to put money and labor dollars into renumbering to IPv6 or
> buying NAT gateways or whatnot.  So no matter what, the ending
> of IPv4 allocations, whether natural or artificial, is going to produce
> a set of unintended consequences that are going to be pretty
> much the same.

You missed the second part of my statement.  Most people are willing to live 
with things they don't like if they feel they're just.  For instance, I'm 
okay with not being allowed to kill people (even if I occasionally want to) 
because I agree that such a law is just.

Likewise, people can't help but agree that when we're out of addresses, 
we're out; one cannot argue with a bare cupboard no matter how hungry one 
is.  OTOH, if the RIRs still have addresses available, how is it just to 
refuse to let people have them solely because some arbitrary date has 
passed?  That is the distinction I'm making.

>>Freezing the IPv4 registry on a particular date isn't necessary.
>>ARIN (and the other RIRs) can still do many useful things even
>>if there's no more "new" space left.
>
> No more "new" space?  So you don't call IPv6 allocations "new"

I said "the IPv4 registry".

> Who is using them now?!?!

IPv6?  Pretty much nobody so far in the ARIN region; that's part of the 
problem.  This proposal comes from JPNIC, which sees significantly higher 
IPv6 uptake rates than we've got; their views on the best path forward are 
naturally going to be inconsistent with ours since we're working from 
different experiences.  (Not to mention cultural differences...)

There are two questions to answer about any "global" policy proposal:

1.  Does the ARIN community agree with it?
2.  If we don't, should we adopt it anyways to support other RIRs' plans?

My answer to both is "no" at this time, but that's just me and I might be 
swayed.  I'm seeing a definite shortage of people saying "yes" to either so 
far, but it's only been 25 hours since the proposal was posted...

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