[ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal
tedm at ipinc.net
Wed Mar 21 18:04:50 EDT 2007
>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
>>> - Reclamation of unused address space. It doesn't matter if we do
>>> 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,
>>> matter if it's 2010, 2020, or 2050, the question is what do we do
>>> 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
>> 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.
>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
>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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML