[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

[Tony Hain]

Your analogies are fine, but try another one:
We are on the space shuttle (no engines or means for a go-around) and the
current glide slope is too steep to avoid a hard landing because there is
not enough distance left (reserve pool) to the runway. All you can really do
is brace for impact ...

I am not opposed to an approach like soft-landing, but the markers have to
recognize that consumption is accelerating. This is where 2007-12 failed,
because it effectively built in an assumption of a close to flat 10 /8's per
year. The trend says we will be below 40 /8's in the pool by the end of this
year, and right at if not below 20 by the end of next year. Consider that
there are effectively 30 months left, and then think about how much time
people will need to respond before setting the thresholds. 

To a first order I would blow off the wait for 40, and just start requiring
a plan now. Since we will be approaching 30 about a year from now, that
might make sense as an 'implementation required' threshold; as either the
pool depth or 7/1/08 whichever comes first. Beyond that there is very little
that will make any difference, including reclamation or redefining 240/4.
One might think about going for 'implementation required' starting at the
end of this year, which would give close to 2 years of parallel run rate,
but that would set off a short term panic because it does not leave time for
a business plan response. 

To a first order I agree with Randy that it is not the RIR's job to force
the members to be proactive. At the same time it is a reasonable part of
stewardship to make sure the membership is informed so the inevitable claims
about 'you didn't tell me' can be dealt with. In light of this, the message
has to go out to everyone, not just those that are actively applying; so the
past policy proposals appear to be short-sighted in that you only find out
about the change when you come knocking for more.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
> Scott Leibrand
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 10:20 AM
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing
> 
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > On 11-mei-2007, at 10:14, Member Services wrote:
> >
> >> 30 days after specified thresholds in the amount of address space
> >> remaining in the IANA IPv4 free pool are crossed, the requirements
> >> necessary for ISPs to obtain additional IPv4 address space are made
> >> more stringent
> >>
> >
> > The effect of a policy like this is that:
> >
> > a. IPv4 becomes more painful to use because addresses are harder to
> get
> > b. the incentive to move to IPv6 is reduced because the moment that
> the
> >     IPv4 is completely depleted is postponed
> >
> As written, those two statements appear to contradict each other.  To
> put it in economic terms, the effect of a policy like this is that:
> 
>     * IPv4 becomes more expensive (though additional work required)
>       because addresses are harder to get
>     * as the cost of IPv4 growth goes up, IPv6 will become a
>       cheaper/easier alternative for a number of orgs (for some earlier
>       than others)
>     * as some orgs switch their growth over to IPv6, the moment that
>       IPv4 is completely depleted is postponed.  This delays the
>       increase in IPv4 cost (through slower triggering of IPv4 Soft
>       Landing thresholds), and allows more time for the cost of
>       deploying IPv6 services to come down (through natural replacement
>       of old IPv4-only gear with new IPv6-capable gear, and by giving
>       people time to learn IPv6)
> 
> To re-use a recently proposed analogy, let's say that 5 years from now a
> major war starts in the Middle East, and a good majority of the oil
> extraction infrastructure is destroyed..  The US has to decide how to
> use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in order to minimize economic
> disruption while consumers switch to alternatives, such as transit,
> telecommuting, biofuels, the use of plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), and
> producers ramp up production from more expensive sources.  Two
> strategies are proposed.  In the first, the government proposes to
> release oil from the SPR (under today's replenish-it-later terms) to any
> refiner who needs it until the SPR is exhausted.  In the second, they
> set thresholds for gradually increasing the price of oil from the SPR as
> the reserve is used up.
> 
> In the first scenario, which I believe is analogous to leaving IPv4
> allocation policies unchanged until the free pool is exhausted, you
> would see the following:
> 
>     * Much ado would be made about the need to make PHEVs, flex-fuel
>       vehicles, and biofuels more available, and to encourage their
>       use.  Car-makers (vendors) would be encouraged to design and start
>       producing PHEVs and flex-fuel vehicles, and some consumers would
>       start buying them right away.  The price of gas would go up, and
>       consumers would start to change their behavior, but gasoline would
>       still be available for several months, so many consumers who can
>       still afford gas continue to take advantage of the
>       now-less-congested roadways and drive to work as before.  Biofuel
>       producers would attempt to ramp up production capacity, but would
>       initially be competing with fuel produced from the oil in the SPR
>     * As the SPR is exhausted, there would be increasingly frantic
>       discussion about the need for people to prepare for the impending
>       shortage.  This would encourage some additional consumers to start
>       changing their behavior, but other consumers ignore the lectures
>       and continue on as before.
>     * Once the SPR is exhausted, gas prices shoot through the roof, and
>       shortages start to be seen at gas stations.  The consumers who
>       have continued relying on their traditional automobiles suddenly
>       realize they have to do something, and frantically start trying to
>       change their behavior.
> 
> In the second scenario, which I believe is analogous to the IPv4 Soft
> Landing proposal (or a similar policy), you would see the following:
> 
>     * The same calls for PHEVs, biofuels, etc. would be made.  The price
>       of petroleum-based fuels would start to rise more rapidly than
>       under the first scenario, as oil from the SPR becomes more costly.
>     * The biofuel producers would quickly find that they have a cost
>       advantage over petroleum fuel, and would invest more rapidly in
>       increasing production.  Auto makers would see their sales switch
>       over to nearly 100% PHEVs and flex-fuel vehicles, so they would
>       ramp up PHEV production much faster, and convert all their other
>       factories to producing flex-fuel vehicles.  Mass transit providers
>       would see their ridership rapidly increase, and would rapidly
>       start adding buses and trains to their existing fleets.
>     * As consumers switch away from petroleum-based fuels, the
>       exhaustion of the SPR would slow.  Eventually oil prices would
>       settle to a new higher equilibrium, and the SPR probably would not
>       be exhausted completely.  Shortages of gas would be rare.
>     * Some would argue that the government should've released more oil
>       from the SPR to reduce the impact of the switch away from oil, but
>       others would recognize that by applying the "Soft Landing" policy,
>       major disruptions and shortages were averted, and the switch away
>       from oil was accomplished at a much lower cost to the economy than
>       originally predicted.  (For other examples of that, see the
>       results of the sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade program.)
> 
> 
> > c. in many cases, the same amount of address space as before is given
> > out,
> >     but now as many small blocks, increasing the ARIN workload and
> > hindering
> >     route aggregation
> >
> This is a different concern that we'll need to keep an eye on and
> possibly address.  I'm not sure the deaggregation under Soft Landing
> would be any worse than that under a Hard Landing.  As mentioned by
> others, we are likely to see a lot of deaggregation of existing
> allocated-but-unrouted space as exhaustion nears.  It's possible that
> Soft Landing may reduce that, offsetting the additional routing table
> load from smaller allocations.
> > As such, a policy like this doesn't seem to be in the best interest
> > of the internet community at large.
> >
> As you can tell, I think that a policy like Soft Landing that attempts
> to provide incentives for people to gradually move their growth away
> from IPv4 will help ease the disruption of the transition.  As such, I
> believe that a proposal like Soft Landing is much better than the
> alternative of continuing existing policy until the unallocated IPv4
> pool is exhausted.
> 
> 
> -Scott
> _______________________________________________
> 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