[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

[Martin Hannigan]

David Conrad wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On May 14, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> > I still think that all we have to do is do nothing with
> > IPv4, stop improving and adding management, let it die a
> > slow death by attrition, while at the same time making
> > IPv6 easier to use and educating   people on
> > the network enhancements that IPv6 provides.
> 
> This would appear to be what I call the "cruise control"
> model of   dealing with IPv4 exhaustion.  The analogy is
> that you're driving   down a road that you know has a
> brick wall at the end.  Some folks   are building a
> parallel highway right next to the road you're on.    Not
> doing anything is approximately equivalent to putting the
> car on   cruise control, leaning back, and hoping somebody
> builds an off ramp   to the new highway before you hit the
> wall.

It's inevitable. There is an ideological split amongst RIR
memberships 
on how to deal with this and the wedge is perceived fairness
related to 
the allocation models that have been in use. As you know,
unless all 5 
RIR groups sign off on contextually identical global
policies, there
won't be one. If there won't be a global policy, it is
likely there
won't be a globally coordinated policy either.

We won't be out of IP address space. We'll be out of a
certain 
type. It's akin to moving from gasoline to diesel more than
hitting a brick wall. 



-M<