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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org]
>Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:34 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Public Policy Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and
>Support/Non-SupportRequested
>
>
>Ted,
>
>On Oct 3, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> I am opposed to this policy for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1) No public mechanism is specified for proof of utilization.
>> 2) No mechanism is specified for continuing proof of 100% utilization.
>
>No mechanism is specified because I assume ARIN staff will use the
>same mechanism they use today.
>

Your ignoring the issue.  I will remind you that your in a public forum
and if you take shortcuts to respond to criticism of the proposal, it will
definitely be voted down as people will rightly conclude that you
have not thought things through.

This proposal is like the Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike, and
ignoring the real problem which is the water behind the dike is rising
because the pumps can't return it back to the sea fast enough.  Sure,
patching a few holes will reduce the water coming through the dike, but
it's not a complete solution.  If you really want to keep behind the dike
dry, you have to both patch the holes AND beef up the pumps.  Your just
patching the holes a bit.

The "mechanism ARIN uses today" that follows up to be sure that people
keep the additional promises of 100% utilization in a year and suchlike,
that your proposing, were not designed for your proposal.  They were
designed
for the EXISTING IPv4 justification requirements - which are laxer than
yours.  They will need to be changed if your proposal were to work.

For example, ARIN depends on fees as one of the levers to keep people
from requesting a lot of IP numbers then not using them.  This works as
long as IPv4 is plentiful and not difficult to get.  Orgs that request a
lot of it then later on find out they don't need so much, have a financial
incentive to save money by returning unused IPv4 and thus lowering their
yearly fee.  The orgs know that since it is plentiful and cheap that if
they ever need it again, they can just go back to ARIN and get it again.

Your proposal makes IPv4 more difficult to get.  Well when you restrict
availability of something, you drive up it's value.  That's why DeBeers
vaults diamonds it pulls out of South Africa.  As the monopoly owner of most
of the investment grade diamond mines in the world they artificially
increase the price of diamonds by restricting their availability.

Your proposals drive up the value of IPv4 and thus undercut the financial
incentive to return unused IPv4.  Now, orgs that get extra IPv4 will look
at your proposal and think Gee I better just keep paying the fees on it
because if I return it I might not be able to get it back.  In order to
counteract this side effect, you need increased enforcement of the
utilization demands your proposing.  This is why when towns and
municipalities
decrease speed limits on in-town roads that they then increase police
presense on those roads.  Lowering the speed limit makes the old way of
just "trusting drivers to do the right thing" not work anymore.

Ted