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

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Wed Mar 21 16:55:11 EDT 2007

>-----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
>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?


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list