[ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal
tedm at ipinc.net
Wed Mar 21 17:51:54 EDT 2007
>From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:48 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Leo Bicknell
>Cc: ARIN PPML
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy
>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
>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.
Well, that is a sticky issue, one I deliberately didn't address.
On one hand reassigning IPv4 that is reclaimed is a fundamental
principle of doing IPv4 reclamation in the first place - if you
are not reclaiming it to hand out again, what is the point of
reclamation? That is my feeling.
On the other hand, there is some logic to the idea that if your going
to set a T-date for when no more IPv4 will be allocated, then it is
difficult to make an argument that you will not move the T-date forward
if you get a lot of addressing given back - but if the T-date becomes
more flexible, then it loses potency.
I am hoping that if a T-date is set that the networking people will
understand that it can be adjusted and the PC-ragazine columnists
that like to write "sky is falling" stories will miss the distinction
(or deliberatly ignore it)
More information about the ARIN-PPML