[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

I don't think is a good idea to try going for a global policy.

It may happen that in some regions don't reach consensus, and even if that
happens, it may be slower.

I will instead suggest making sure that all the regions adopt it one by one
(even if at the end there are some differences among the final text in some
of them).

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Stephen Sprunk <stephen at sprunk.org>
> Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> Fecha: Fri, 11 May 2007 12:29:04 -0500
> Para: ARIN PPML <ppml at arin.net>
> Asunto: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing
> 
> Thus spake "G. Waleed Kavalec" <Kavalec at BSWA.com>
>> I support this proposal, exactly because of the carrot/stick it
>> provides; it gives sysadmins across the nation something very
>> tangible to give their management.
> 
> I don't see much of a carrot.  The phases are arbitrary from management's
> perspective since they depend on IANA's actions and what the various RIRs
> are doing.  I'd much, much prefer that specific dates are put on the phases
> (such as 1 Jan of each year starting in 2009, or something based on current
> projections) because _that_ is something management can figure in when
> planning their budgets.
> 
> I like the idea of progressively tighter requirements as we get closer to
> exhaustion, and particularly that we are going to tell people what they'll
> be long in advance of them happening instead of being based on policy action
> at each meeting, which can't be predicted.
> 
> There's also no mention of whether this is intended to be retroactive, i.e.
> interface with potential reclamation activities.  If it does, is ARIN
> supposed to go back and start revoking allocations for people without IPv6
> deployment plans the day we hit phase 1?  If so, that may affect a lot of
> people's support for both proposals.  I'm also against third-party audits;
> if we get to the point current review procedures are insufficient due to
> widespread fraud, we need to debate such a controversial change separately.
> 
> Also, as David W. mentioned, this doesn't seem to have any consideration for
> direct assignments, only allocations.  If that's the intent, which I'm not
> sure I agree with, that should be called out.  If not, the same requirements
> don't seem to make sense.
> 
> Last, this seems to be a global policy, and I understand it's expedient to
> submit the same proposal to each RIR, but we need someone to revise this to
> show how it'll fit into the NRPM.  I'm currently on the fence, given my
> issues above, so I am not volunteering for that task.
> 
> S
> 
> Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
> CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
> K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.