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

Edward Lewis Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz
Fri Oct 5 10:32:44 EDT 2007


At 16:10 -0500 10/2/07, Bill Darte wrote:

>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>http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/index.html) 
>and voice support or non-support
>for this proposal with concise reasoning.

It would certainly be bad to "abdicate responsibility"...

On the one hand I like the way this proposal thinks, but it thinks 
like an engineer.  It certainly has the mechanics in it to achieve 
the goal of softening the transition pains.

But I also waver over whether it is worth the effort.  At the APNIC 
meeting (yes, I know, not "our" region, yet a public policy meeting 
none the less) there was a discussion between two proposals.  The two 
were similar up to a parameter.  Each proposal mandated that IANA 
operate as is until there were either 1x5 or 2x5 /8's left (assuming 
the number of RIRs is 5).  Once the last 5 or 10 /8's were left they 
were handed out evenly to the RIRs regardless of burn rates.

Of the two, I preferred the handing out of 1 /8 (not the 2 /8).  The 
reason is that this approach is largely ceremonial.  While it is true 
that the burn rate of a /8 varies region to region, for 1 /8, this 
isn't a significant difference.  (There could be a sharp rise in 
membership at the lower burn rate organizations, but really, there 
isn't much to get at that point.)  In the lower burn rate regions, 
the symbolism of being given as much a the higher rate seems somewhat 
important.

Those proposals are lightweight work-wise, least command-econonmyish, 
have probably the right dose of ceremonial benefit, and aren't trying 
to delay the pain of the IPv4 run out.

So, on the other hand, I think that the IPv4 Soft Landing might be 
"trying to hard" to protect ourselves.

Ultimately, in a vacuum, it's a good proposal.  But considering other 
ideas floating around I have doubt that it's the right mechanism.

As an aside - if we delay the run out of IPv4 by 12 months, is there 
an indication that the obstacle to IPv6 will be removed in that 12 
month period?
If it is the routing system, will 12 more months improve/strengthen 
it?  (I guess I have never understood the rationale for "rationing" 
the remaining IPv4 addresses.  They aren't a consumable {water, oil} 
and the last won't tide us over until there's a rescue.)
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Think glocally.  Act confused.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20071005/07cfeaa3/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list