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

Raul Echeberria raul at lacnic.net
Mon Oct 8 09:42:37 EDT 2007


Ed:

As you suggest, I think that there are implication of some policies in others.

While I usually don't particpate very much in 
policy discussions, this issue is of a great 
importance for the future of the RIR's system, so, I will make an exception.
My view is that we need some kind of  "soft 
landing" proposal, but we face two probable problems.

1) The current IANA-RIRs  IPv4 allocation 
policies works in a way in which as much IPv4 
addresses an RIR allcocate to their 
custumers/members, as much IPv4 addresses they 
can receive from IANA. So, to apply this kind of 
policies in one region would probably put that 
region in disadvantage in relation to the other 
regions. So, the first problem is that a policy 
like this probably would not be adopted only in 
one region. The challenge is coordination. 
Coordination means from my perspective to have a 
cross-regional dialogue in order to analyze the 
pertinence of promotint some kind of "soft 
landing" proposals in every region. (not 
necessarily the same policy in every region, but 
based in the same concept/objective)

2)  As you pointed out, there is a relation 
between soft landing proposal and the other 
proposals that are being discussed. (distribution 
of the last part of the free IPv4 pool)
But, IMHO the relation is the opposite of what 
you mentioned. Since the distribution of the last 
part of the IPv4 pool will naturally take off 
pressure from the unallocated pool and will help 
to avoid a competition for that pool, it probably 
will create a better environment to implement "soft landing" policies.


I will submit a proposal to all the RIRs' lists 
in order to address what I identify as the first 
problem, but it should not be considered as an 
opposition to the David's proposal.



Raúl










At 11:32 a.m. 05/10/2007, Edward Lewis wrote:
>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.
>_______________________________________________
>PPML
>You are receiving this message because you are 
>subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
>Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml 
>Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20071008/249ddde9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list