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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:43 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy
>Proposal
>
>>>
>>> - Reclamation of unused address space.  It doesn't matter if we do  
>>> this
>>>  or not, all predictions are we still run out of address space.
>>
>> This is an extreme simplification that is essentically incorrect.  If
>> relamation were to exceed everyone's estimates then it might push the
>> runout date so far in advance that it would become theoretical.  I
>> agee the chances of this are small but the are not nonexistent - so
>> in fact, reclamation does have a place in the discussion.
>>
>And, if the aerodynamic coefficient of monkeys could be modified
>sufficiently, then, they could fly, perhaps even out of my butt.  Get
>real.  The odds of any reclamation effort succeeding to such an
>extent are so close to zero as to not even be good theory.
>

:-)

Is there some usage of the phrase "extreme simplification" that escapes
you?  I did like the monkeys image, though.

>>> - Are the predictions of when we run out correct?  Same problem,  
>>> doesn't
>>>  matter if it's 2010, 2020, or 2050, the question is what do we do  
>>> when
>>>  it happens.
>>>
>>
>> If it is 2050 then we are setting policy prematurely if the policy is
>> not going to come into effect for another 43 years.  You and I will
>> certainly both be retired, very likely both dead of old age.  We do  
>> not
>> have the moral right to dictate policy to our children for a
>> community problem that will arise after we are dead of old age.
>> We only have the right to set policy that we are going to live by.
>> I also have the same objection to the continual
>> immoral lengthing of copyright terms, by the way.
>>

>Wrong again.  We have the right and, indeed, the obligation to
>set appropriate policy for likely circumstances now.

Now <> 2050.

>No matter
>what policy we set now, it will likely be changed by our children
>and perhaps their children between now and 2050, so, this is no
>reason to avoid setting policy now.
>

Hmm..  So we should set policy that we think is likely to be changed.

>> You might as well write policy now for the runout of IPv6.
>>
>Personally, I think it should be the same as the current policy  
>regarding
>the runout of IPv4 (which I also think is perfectly fine),

You mean the nonexistent policy for IPv4 runout that we have now?

>so, I have no
>problem with that.
>

Oh, I get it.  Little slow today.

Ted