[ppml] PPML Digest, Vol 21, Issue 55

Thu Mar 22 08:53:34 EDT 2007

Unsubscribe please 

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
ppml-request at arin.net
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:48 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: PPML Digest, Vol 21, Issue 55

Send PPML mailing list submissions to
	ppml at arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	ppml-request at arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	ppml-owner at arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of PPML digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal
      (michael.dillon at bt.com)
   2. Re: Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal
      (Ted Mittelstaedt)
   3. In$entive$ (Leo Bicknell)
   4. Re: IPv4 wind-down (Ted Mittelstaedt)
   5. Re: IPv4 wind-down (michael.dillon at bt.com)
   6. Re: Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal
      (Geoff Huston)
   7. Re: Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal
      (MAEMURA Akinori)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:01:11 -0000
From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy
	Proposal
To: <ppml at arin.net>
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"

 >...shouldn't we let the market determine the value of IPv4
> addresses?
> 
> Imagine if some central source (ICANN or the RIRs) created a service 
> where transfers of IP address space could be registered like a county 
> registrar of deeds.

We call this service, ARIN.

> In our world we commonly deal with limited resources.  For example, 
> consider land in Florida.  There is no chance of switching to land in 
> Florida v6.  Over many years we have developed mature, commonly 
> understood methods of buying and selling land.  We have real estate 
> agents, title companies, mortgage companies and the county registrar 
> of deeds.

You could have picked any state in the union. Why choose Florida of all
places. At one time it had a well-deserved reputation for selling
non-existent land, i.e. mangrove swamp. Then, some smart people figured
out that instead of ripping of northerners by selling them swampland,
they could make more money by manufacturing land by filling in the
swamps. IPv4 addresses are not as malleable as Florida land. They are
more like the good solid square plots of land found in the Great Plains
states.

> Some of the problems I can think of are:

And that is the basic problem with all of these "selling address" ideas.
They change things, in the hopes that it will solve some problem or
other, but with the certainty that it will create a host of new
problems.

> Some of the advantages I can think of are:
> 1) This something that CEO on an airplane can understand.  

Indeed! I can hear him on the phone to his senator now, demanding that
the government stop this madness. Remember that CEO made his career in
orderly controlled and regulated markets. Think SEC, SOX, FCC, RIAA,
ISO-9000 etc.

> If you like it,
> tell me how to improve it.  If you don't, suggest something better.

You want something better?

The basic problem is that there is not enough publicity about the IPv4
wind-down and therefore not enough debate, in the networking/IT
industry, about how to deal with it. Changing ARIN policy is not the
right way to deal with a publicity problem and not the right way to
engage the networking/IT industry in debate.

--Michael Dillon

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:24:03 -0700
From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net>
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy
	Proposal
To: "Jim Weyand" <jweyand at computerdata.com>,	"Leo Bicknell"
	<bicknell at ufp.org>, <ppml at arin.net>
Message-ID: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOGEPBHAAA.tedm at ipinc.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Weyand [mailto:jweyand at computerdata.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:12 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net
>Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy 
>Proposal
>
>
>This may violate the spirit of the various Memorandums of 
>Understanding, etc. but shouldn't we let the market determine the value

>of IPv4 addresses?
>
>Imagine if some central source (ICANN or the RIRs) created a service 
>where transfers of IP address space could be registered like a county 
>registrar of deeds.
>

There are several problem with this approach.

First, is that your inviting governmental regulation in where you really
do not want it.  Governments clearly have authority over buying and
selling between people in their countries in every country in the world.
They can tell you what you can and cannot buy and sell, they can tell
you how to do it, when you can do it, and on and on and on.

Governments also go to the mat for wealthy corporations in their borders
because corporations fund governments, either by taxes or bribery (ie:
political campaign contributions)

You would end up with the wealthy networks and wealthy governments using
legal means to push the poorer governments and networks out of the
running for IPv4 addressing.

>In our world we commonly deal with limited resources.  For example, 
>consider land in Florida.  There is no chance of switching to land in 
>Florida v6.  Over many years we have developed mature, commonly 
>understood methods of buying and selling land.  We have real estate 
>agents, title companies, mortgage companies and the county registrar of

>deeds.
>

And you will find in Florida that the most desirable land is owned by
the wealthy.

That is an acceptable solution for the United States because the society
in the US has been conditioned to believe that it is OK for the rich to
get the best of everything.

However it is not what many societies in the world accept and from a
moral standpoint it is a solution rejected by just about every
mainstream religion in the world, as well as many secular schools of
philosophy.

>4) It would be unfair to regions and organizations of modest means.
>Maybe, but is it fair to make them upgrade to IPv6?  Isn't the fairest 
>thing to allow them to make their own choice?
>

IPv4 "sales" and "speculation" and all of that are going to happen,
I assure you.  And no matter how it happens it is going to be unfair
to some people.  However there is a huge difference between official
support and sanction of the deep pockets by IANA and the RIR's and
no official support and sanction.

It is very possible for the RIR's to take the high road here.  The
deep pockets that want to engage in billion dollar /8 sales to each
other do not need the help of the numbering authorities to do their
deals, they are going to do them if market conditions warrant with or
without official sanction.

If the RIRs stay the hell out of this then such activity will happen
for several years but eventually as conversion to IPv6 continues, such
activity will die off.

If they get into the thick of things then your going to establish an
infractructure that will last far longer than it is needed, and will
give a toehold for governments to interfere.

>Some of the advantages I can think of are:
>1) This something that CEO on an airplane can understand.  IPv4
>addresses are a resource.  Resources have a cost.  Markets determine
>costs.
>

Not for all resources.  For example, labor is a resource that as it
becomes scarcer and more expensive, costs have less and less effect.

If your in the market for ditch diggers you can get all you want
by adjusting your costs for them.

If your in the market for the 5 people who designed the last AMD
processor chip, you may find that no amount of money in the world
will obtain their services.  They may decide your a jerkoff.

If your in the market for a wife.... well I won't go there.

In any case, one of the requirements, probably the most important
requirement, for IP allocation is defining need.  That need is
based on what your customers and servers and network gear must have
to function.  It is not defined by how much IPv4 your planning on
selling.  All of this is current policy and would have to be swept
away to permit IP allocations based on how much IPv4 you want to
be able to sell in the future, but really don't need for your own use.

Ted

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:30:55 -0500
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org>
Subject: [ppml] In$entive$
To: ppml at arin.net
Message-ID: <20070322003055.GA24772 at ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I'm going to start a thread with an offshoot idea, although it's
not strictly a policy matter.  People keep talking about incenting
people to move to IPv6.  What if ARIN were to implement a new fee
schedule:

Year Fees for IPv4 Addresses
2007 Existing rates.
2008 2 * 2007 Rates
2009 4 * 2007 Rates
2010 8 * 2007 Rates
2011 16 * 2007 Rates
2012 32 * 2007 Rates
2013 32 * 2007 Rates
2014 32 * 2007 Rates
2015 32 * 2007 Rates
etc

Per http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html, someone with a
single /19 would go from $2,250 a year in 2007 to $72,000 in 2012.
It's predictable so you can show management, there is a sense of
urgency, and it doesn't happen overnight to create a run on IPv6
addresses.  It also provides proportional incentive to the largest
and smallest IP's.

As an alternative, so as not to punish existing address space holders
this could be applied to initial allocations only.

I suspect, "hey boss, our IPv4 space is going to cost us 32x in 6 years,
and we can get IPv6 space for free" would be a powerful motivator.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/attachments/20070321/dc02e339/attac
hment-0001.bin

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:40:17 -0700
From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net>
Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down
To: <michael.dillon at bt.com>, <ppml at arin.net>
Message-ID: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOOEPBHAAA.tedm at ipinc.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>michael.dillon at bt.com
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:38 PM
>To: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down
>
>
>
>> Horse and buggies are not permitted on freeways, at least not
>> in the United States. 
>
>You can buy a brand new bicycle for $14,000
>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/23/would_you_spend_14
0
>00_for_this_bike/

Please tell me you couldn't find anything as stupid as that in the UK!

>but you can't drive that on a freeway. And you can't drive a Segway on
>the freeway either.
>

Actually you can ride bicycles on US highways, at least in some states
(maybe all of them?) definitely in the state I'm in.  Yes, you too
can be within a foot of cars going 65 Mph on a bicycle.  Where do I
sign up!!

>> There are many many examples of abandonded older technologies
>> that are completely incompatible with newer technologies, and
>> have been obsoleted.  As owners of analog-broadcast-recieve
>> televisions in the United States are going to soon find out.
>
>Back in the 1930's, something called radio was developed into a
>business. There were popular music programs and radio dramas. Today, in
>the UK admittedly, I have a digital radio on which I can listen to
>popular music programs and radio dramas. In fact, when I switched from
>analog to digital I got a wider choice of stations to listen to. There
>is a metaphor in here somewhere, for the IPv4 to IPv6 transition.
>

Hmm - let's see now, compare the amount of time devoted to commercials
on today's radio with 1930's radio...

Ted

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:52:33 -0000
From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 wind-down
To: <ppml at arin.net>
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"

> >> Horse and buggies are not permitted on freeways, at least not
> >> in the United States. 

> >but you can't drive that on a freeway. And you can't drive a 
> Segway on
> >the freeway either.

> Actually you can ride bicycles on US highways, at least in some states
> (maybe all of them?) definitely in the state I'm in.

You can take a horse and buggy on US highways as well, but not on the
freeway.
You see it all the time in Pennsylvania's Lancaster county.

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:39:32 +1100
From: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy
	Proposal
To: David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>,	Stephen Sprunk
	<stephen at sprunk.org>
Cc: Public Policy Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20070322122445.02d00168 at apnic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 08:47 AM 22/03/2007, David Conrad wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Mar 21, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >> People don't like the fact that IPv4 is ending, period.
> > IPv4 isn't ending; it's approaching the inherent limits of growth.
>
>It isn't even that.  The IPv4 _FREE POOL as administered by IANA and
>the RIRs_ is being exhausted.  That's all.
>
>There is lots of unused address space locked away in legacy (and not
>so legacy) allocations.  I imagine that address space is increasingly
>going to come into play as folks find they are not able to obtain
>addresses via "traditional" means.

The data on the IPv4 address pools over time appears to show that 
this might already be happening today.

The total size of the address pool that has been allocated by the 
RIRs but is not visible in the routing table  peaked in July 2005 at 
a pool size that was the equivalent of 49.4 /8's Today that 
"allocated but unadvertised" pool sits at 47.0 /8's. i.e. over the 
past 20 months or so the equivalent of 2.4 /8's, or some 40.2M /32s, 
has come into play in the public Internet as address space advertised 
as reachable in the routing system.  While I have not looked hard at 
the data to determine the precise profile of allocation dates of this 
particular pool of address space, it does appear that most of this 
allocated but unadvertised space that has appeared in the routing 
system over this period was originally allocated in the period 1990 - 
1995, providing a strong hint that its the legacy address space that 
is reappearing in this manner already.

[The reports of IPv4 consumption are at http://ipv4.potaroo.net, and 
the time series of the size of the "allocated but unadvertised" 
address pool is graphed in Figure 30b, and allocation date 
distribution of unadvertised address space is shown in Figure 14.]

Geoff

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:46:48 +0900
From: MAEMURA Akinori <maem at nic.ad.jp>
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy
	Proposal
To: bicknell at ufp.org, ppml at arin.net
Message-ID: <200703221046.JJI42726.FBNN at nic.ad.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Leo,

  Thank you very much for your simplification on our proposal
and summarization of the discussion.  

It is not "over-"simplification but precisely figuring out
our motivation and original idea.

Regards,
Akinori

P.S. -	I must admit it is very hard for me to catch up all 
	discussion on this mailing list, even in my native 
	language it should be tough.

In message <20070320233652.GC37431 at ussenterprise.ufp.org>
   "Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal"
   "Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org>" wrote:

| While I think there has been a lot of good discussion generated
| from the IPv4 policy, a lot of it has strayed from the original
| policy proposal.  I'm going to attempt to bring that back around a
| bit as we need to tackle the issue of address space exhaustion.
| 
| To that end, I'd like to oversimplify the proposal.  Language,
| format, and justification aside I believe the proposal can be boiled
| down to the following simpler statement:
| 
|     The RIR's, in order to assure the orderly shutdown of IPv4
|     allocations should do their best to predict the date at which
|     there will be no more IPv4 addresses available, should announce
|     a termination date just before the predicted exhaustion, and
|     should cease allocations on that date even if there is some
|     address space still available.
| 
| I believe the intent of the authors is to realize a number of
potential
| benefits:
| 
| - There is a well known date at which no more IPv4 space will be
|   available, making it easier for those needed addresses to show their
|   management the need for alternate plans.
| 
| - By the RIR's shutting down distributions of addresses at the same
|   time it prevents the "last RIR standing" from being swamped by every
|   international company solely because they still have addresses.
| 
| Of course, there are drawbacks:
| 
| - This requires global coordination.
| 
| - We may leave some IPv4 space unused that could otherwise be put to
|   good use.
| 
| - This policy itself may cause a run on IP space.
| 
| There are alternatives, Owen DeLong just wrote about what would
probably
| be considered the opposite viewpoint in another message, I quote:
| 
|     I believe that the system will function and that there is no need
|     to  do anything different until ARIN is unable to fulfill
requests.
|     At that time,  ARIN should fulfill request it can on a
|     first-come-first-serve basis and provide  a polite apology in
|     response to requests which cannot be fulfilled.  I do not  believe
|     a change of policy is required in order for ARIN staff to do this.
| 
| Last, in an attempt to keep the discussion focused, I'd ask you to
| consider if these related topics are relevant to this policy's thread,
| along with why I think most are not:
| 
| - 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.  All
|   this does is move the date, which is a valid discussion but the
topic at
|   hand here is what happens when the RIR's have no more space to
|   allocate.
| 
| - Encouraging people to use less IPv4 addresses, including but not
|   limited to higher fees, required use of NAT, rejustification of
existing
|   IPs.   Same issue, it delays the date we run out, but doesn't change
|   the problem of what the RIR's should do when they run out.
| 
| - 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.
| 
| I'd like to see all three of those issues discussed, just in another
| thread.
| 
| -- 
|        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
|         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
| Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
| 
| 
| 
| _______________________________________________
| This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
| (PPML at arin.net).
| Manage your mailing list subscription at:
| http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
| 
| 
| 

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

End of PPML Digest, Vol 21, Issue 55
************************************