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

[David Conrad]

Michael,

On Oct 3, 2007, at 2:54 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com>  
<michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
> 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 agree it is complex.  I'm not sure how it could be made less complex.

> 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.

I will note that the current number is 80%.  Is that somehow less  
meaningless?

> Things do not necessarily scale
> linearly and the hierarchical structure of IPv4 sub-allocation makes
> 100% allocation impossible for anyone to attain.

As mentioned in a previous note, ARIN staff have told me explicitly  
that 100% utilization of previous allocations is an existing  
requirement.

> 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.

So what parts do you not agree with?

Thanks,
-drc