[ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> As shepherd of the ARIN Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing, I 
> would like to ask the community to once again consider this 
> proposal in advance of the Albuquerque Public Policy and 
> Membership Meetings (http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/index.html) 
> and voice support or non-support for this proposal with 
> concise reasoning.

First it is an overly complex proposal made worse by using "cute"
terminology like "Phase 0" which is not explained until the very end of
the proposal.

I am opposed to this policy because it weaves together too many actions.
Some of the actions are rather mild such as the survey requirement which
I support. Others, are not so mild such as tightening the screws on ISP
customers and tightening the screws on ISPs. In addition, the numbers
tossed out, e.g. 85%, are meaningless. Things do not necessarily scale
linearly and the hierarchical structure of IPv4 sub-allocation makes
100% allocation impossible for anyone to attain.

I'd like to see the mild actions separated out from this proposal and
dealt with first. Yes we should require everybody to fill in an IPv6
survey and get it signed by a company financial officer before gettinga
additional IPv4 addresses. Yes we should require increasingly stringent
internal audits of IPv4 utilisation so that we don't give new addresses
to companies who have lots of it scattered around in old forgotten
corners. Yes, we should require evidence of movement towards IPv6
deployment starting with planning, then test labs in place, then actual
IPv6 infrastructure. I would not be opposed to a policy that bundled a
bunch of such actions along with a phased deployment plan.

--Michael Dillon