[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

[Yves Poppe]

In fact even 2007-12 didn't really impose any dates;  it only only defines tresholds and a time interval.  An A-date and a T-date. The A-date corresponds to a critical level of 30 remaining /8's.  The two year interval to T-date corresponds to a second treshold defined as 10 /8's . The two years, if I read correctly, were derived from the current rate of consumption. There is even a provision to adapt that two year interval if the existing consumption rate varies.

There is some futility to this debate as no one set any absolute dates, let alone artificial ones. 

Of course one might dispute if 30 and 10 are the correct tresholds to consider. All depends on how soft one wants to land. Myself, for one, I normally like to see the beginning of the runway and how long it is before crashing into something at the end.

let's move on and admit that the upcoming scarcity and transition to a new IP address food supply needs to be managed if we want the transition to be orderly and riot free. 

Yves 


-----Message d'origine-----
De : ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]De la part de
David Conrad
Envoyé : Thursday, May 17, 2007 11:42 PM
À : Rich Emmings
Cc : ppml at arin.net
Objet : Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing


Rich,

On May 17, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Rich Emmings wrote:
>> Hmm.  I'm curious what you see as the idea that was poorly  
>> conceived in
>> 2007-12 and weren't addressed in Soft Landing.
> Creation of artificially early dates for restriction to resources will
> increase demand for those resources earlier.

"Soft Landing" does not impose dates.

> I think the existing ARIN policies have done a great job at  
> encouraging those who can start, to start, but you can't push a rope

[examples of why deploying IPv6 today is hard]

If you read the proposal, you'll see that requirements to demonstrate  
IPv6 services and connectivity don't come into play until phase 2 or  
3 which don't take effect until there are only 30 /8s and 20 /8s  
respectively left in the IANA free pool.  Prior to this, ISPs  
requesting IPv4 space would need to document their plans to deploy  
IPv6.  The point of this is to get people to start seriously thinking  
about deploying IPv6.

>> Fortunately(?), IPv4 space scarcity isn't artificial.
> But pushing up the date when we limit assignments is artificial  
> exhaustion.

As stated previously, "Soft Landing" doesn't have dates, it has  
thresholds tied to the amount of space available in the IANA free  
pool.  It tries to provide a smooth transition from "IPv4 available  
from the free pool" to "IPv4 unavailable from the free pool" by  
encouraging increased v4 efficiency and v6 deployment.

> Call it hoarding, or call rationing, but it's artificial.

Rationing is one approach to managing scarcity on the supply side.   
Hoarding is an approach on the demand side.  Yes, it is artificial in  
the sense that it is imposed by people in reaction to the stimulus of  
unavailability of resource.  The alternative is to pretend IPv4 isn't  
scarce.  I'm not sure the Ostrich approach will benefit anyone, even  
if it were feasible.

Rgds,
-drc

_______________________________________________
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