[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

[David Conrad]

Hi,

On May 14, 2007, at 7:20 AM, Rich Emmings wrote:
> Opposed as written.

OK.

> It a poorly conceived idea when it was "2007-12 IPv4 Countdown  
> Policy Proposal", and the changes do not address the weaknesses in  
> 2007-12.

Hmm.  I'm curious what you see as the idea that was poorly conceived  
in 2007-12 and weren't addressed in Soft Landing.  I considered Soft  
Landing to be pretty much the diametric opposite of 2007-12 (no  
reservation, no freezing of policy).

> 1) Based on conversations, I get the impression that most folks  
> proposing
> implementation IPv6, _probably_ have not tried to implement IPv6 on  
> any
> large scale.  ping6 -I eth0 fe80::xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx doesn't count.   
> (I will
> grant I could be wrong on this, hence "probably".)

Guilty as charged.  I have not implemented IPv6 on a large scale.   
However, neither has most of the world, and part of the rationale  
behind Soft Landing is to encourage people to start.

> 2) Artifically making a commodity rare, will cause a run on it  
> before it's rare and push up the dates.

Fortunately(?), IPv4 space scarcity isn't artificial.

> In order to provide something constructive, I think these policy  
> proposals
> attempt to bite off too much.  Break it down into 3 separate ones.
>
> First, define events on the use curve.  (BTW, it's logistic, not  
> exponential)
> Not only when we think we need to change policy, but why?  Maybe we  
> only
> define one point in time for now, and just stay focused on what we  
> need to
> do to not get there.

As mentioned previously, the reason I put in a large number of phases  
was to avoid large changes in requirements over short periods of  
time.  It may be with the revised exhaustion estimates that there is  
insufficient time to actually implement the number of phases I  
specified.  I'll look into this.

As to why there are policy changes, I thought that was explained in  
the rationale section.

> Next, define different policies that ARIN can use with regard to space
> assignment.  Whether you have a /16 or a IPv6 network might be the  
> factors
> that come up here, or whether it's a time based allocation -- you  
> get a /16
> for 2 years then have to return it, or some other agreed-to space, if
> you're asking for some swing space while you do something else.

I'm not sure I'm following you.  These sound like different policies  
that could be applied within the framework of Soft Landing.

> Last, tie the first event to policies.  Once we approach that event  
> in time,
> we have a track record, and can discuss the next best policy to  
> proceed
> with.

The problem with this is that it leaves people in the dark about what  
is going to happen in the future.  I am trying to give people a  
roadmap so that they're aware of what is in store for them.

> Discussing actions seperately from events, allows them to be fully  
> discussed
> with the ramifications, without getting into the side issues of when
> things turn bad.

But it also risks a disconnect and ratholing on irrelevant details.

In any event, thanks for the comments even if you don't support the  
proposal as written.

Rgds,
-drc