[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

> De: David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>
> Responder a: <drc at virtualized.org>
> Fecha: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:02:59 -0700
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> CC: <ppml at arin.net>
> Asunto: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing
> 
> Jordi,
> 
> On May 11, 2007, at 3:29 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> I will say that the community will benefit from the implementation
>> of this
>> policy, and we want to avoid increasing the "cost" on getting IPv4
>> address
>> space from the RIR,
> 
> You're missing the point, I suspect.  The whole concept behind this
> policy is to raise the "cost" of obtaining IPv4 space to both
> decrease IPv4 demand via conservation and increased address space
> efficiency as well as increase the incentive to migrate to IPv6 by

No, I got it perfectly, but in my opinion we don't want to raise the cost
with the audit, because then it may be cheaper to go to secondary market
than the RIR. I'm just trying to find a balance. Of course, may be only my
view.

> (eventually) making getting IPv4 space contingent on demonstrating
> IPv6 services and connectivity.  The cost can either be in
> administrative burden needed to justify additional address space or
> in actual direct (e.g., higher fees) or indirect (e.g., cost of a 3rd
> party audit) monetary cost.  I have avoided the direct cost approach
> as it gets out of policy and into ARIN operational considerations,
> leaving increased administrative burden and indirect costs.
> 
>> in such way that the members have less motivation to go
>> for addresses to the secondary market.
> 
> I am assuming people are going to go to the "secondary market"
> regardless of what the RIRs do.

So let's try to avoid it as much as possible, by not increasing the indirect
cost. Again is a matter of balance, and is not easy to find the right one.

> 
>> So I see reasons for ARIN paying that cost.
> 
> In the end, the requester is going to pay for the 3rd party audit on
> way or the other, either directly buy paying for it themselves, or by
> funding it through membership fees (which may need to increase to
> cover the costs of the audits).

Yes, but shared by all is not going to be so much for each one. Of course,
it may happen that most of the membership don't agree on this path ...

> 
> My suspicion is that having the requester pay for the audit will be
> the simplest.
> 
>> I guess it will be much better to have that defined in the policy.
> 
> OK.  I'd still like to see others' opinions on any one or all of:
> 
> - whether paying for the audit should be defined in the policy
> - whether the audit should be paid for by ARIN or the requester
> - whether there should even be the requirement for the 3rd party audit

What about asking also for if we want the actual IPv6 deployment being
audited ? For example, one choice may be each requester pay for the IPv4
audit cost, but in order to help with the IPv6 deployment, the IPv6 audit is
paid by the community (unless the audit demonstrates that there is not such
deployment !).

> 
> Thanks,
> -drc
> 




**********************************************
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.