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

[David Conrad]

On Oct 4, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> 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.

Thanks for the reminder, although I'm entirely unclear as to why you  
think (a) that I wasn't already aware of it (I have been trying to  
respond directly to any issue anyone raises) and (b) you felt it  
necessary.

> 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.

According to ARIN staff, current requirements for additional address  
space allocations (according to section 4.2.4 of the NPRM) are:

a) 100% utilization of all previous allocations
b) 80% utilization of the most recent allocation

Presumably, ARIN staff have mechanisms in place to verify both  
requirements.  If they felt additional mechanisms were required to  
meet the increased restrictions the Soft Landing proposal imposed, I  
would have thought they would have told me in their comments to me on  
the previous draft of the policy.  They did not nor do I feel it is  
appropriate for me to tell ARIN staff how to do their job.

> Your proposals drive up the value of IPv4 and thus undercut the  
> financial
> incentive to return unused IPv4.

Even if there was a financial incentive to return unused IPv4  
addresses (something I think many people would argue), the fact that  
IPv4 is nearing exhaustion would do this independent of any attempts  
to encourage conservation and promotion of IPv6.

Regards,
-drc