[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

[Edward Lewis]

At 4:14 -0400 5/11/07, Member Services wrote:

>Policy Proposal Name: IPv4 Soft Landing

(Can't get the URL now, writing off-line.)

I like this policy.

At the RIPE meeting a chart was shown that of all space allocated, 
only 1-2% was PI.  I know it is hard to judge what that statement 
means given the looseness of the statistic, so here is the URL of the 
presentation where it was presented.

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-54/presentations/RIPE_NCC_Statistics.pdf

See slide #10.

I asked what the number at ARIN was and was given a preliminary 
approximation of about the same value.

I.e., from this is seems that PI is nothing compared to PA when it 
comes to draining v4.  That is, if I understand the statistic.

Maybe it has too many steps.  I'm sure that can be sanded down.

I think the auditing cost ought to remain on the LIR/ISP as this is 
their request for space.

I assume that this isn't retroactive.

I like that this ties events to the remaining pool and not to a calendar.

I would like this to be a global policy (i.e., headed for IANA), if 
the global policy process would take too long then there there is a 
problem with that process.

Now for my soapbox...what's good about this is that it forces ISP's 
into the realization that they can either stay v4 and stop *growing* 
when numbers run out or they have to switch to something with a 
bigger address space (v6 is the one alternative at hand) and continue 
to be able grow customers.

This is growth, not sustain-ability (my spell checking isn't good 
off-line).  If an ISP does not want new customers, they don't have to 
move to v6.  'Course, over time what doesn't grow usually withers. 
No one is forced to go to v6, it's a choice of to grow or not.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Sarcasm doesn't scale.