[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Countdown

Geoff Huston gih at apnic.net
Wed Mar 14 18:04:04 EDT 2007

At 08:13 AM 15/03/2007, Kevin Loch wrote:
>Tony Hain wrote:
> > I agree that RIR policy is not a place to be solving publicity problems. At
> > the same time the members need to be aware of the pending reality, and if
> > there are going to be changes needed for the post exhaustion event, that
> > planning needs to start well in advance.
>One of the objections I have to the proposal is that I expect "increased
>publicity" will only make the problem happen faster, not better.

Any visibly scarce resource where potential demand exceeds supply is 
subject to a run. The models I've been working on with respect to 
IPv4 exhaustion (http://ipv4.potaroo.net) make he flawed assumption 
that there will be no run and the procession to Ipv4 unallocated pool 
exhaustion will be an orderly one. If it indeed plays out this way it 
may well be the first time in the entire history of humanity. It is 
far more reasonable to expect that demand will pick up and exhaustion 
will probably happen earlier than the current predictions. So the 
existence of this proposal will, as far as I can see, have negligible 
impact on the steadily increasing pressures of demand on the 
shrinking unallocated Ipv4 address pools.

The "publicity", or knowledge of forthcoming exhaustion of this 
particular resource is unavoidable, and in the larger scheme of 
things, I'd offer the view that its probably a far more responsible 
act to promulgate this information as widely as possible so that all 
players are equally well informed about the situation  than not.



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list