[arin-ppml] Further revisions to 2008-2?

[Scott Leibrand]

Yes, there are definitely some valid concerns I share regarding 
deaggregation, and the possibility that action taken to reduce the impact 
of IPv4 exhaustion may slow down IPv6 adoption.  However, on balance I 
think we can address most of the deaggregation concerns with the 
restrictions in 2008-2, and I think it will do more good (in reducing 
transition costs) than harm (in extending the transition over a longer 
timeframe).

But in addition to (re)debating those points, I'd love to hear any further 
feedback on how folks think we should revise 2008-2.  There will be a 
consensus call on it at L.A., and I'd like to have the best possible 
proposal on the table when we get to that point.

-Scott

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:02 PM
>> To: Alain Durand
>> Cc: ARIN PPML
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IANA IPv4 /8 burn rate.... (was Re: 
>> Stepping forward, opening my mouth and removing all doubt about)
>>
>>
>> Alain,
>>
>> You're missing the point.  If IPv4 addresses are free (as 
>> they are now), 
>> of course everyone will use a lot of them.  When they become 
>> scarce and 
>> expensive, people will start conserving IPv4.  Some will be able to 
>> conserve more than others, and a liberalized transfer policy will 
>> encourage them to free those addresses up and transfer them 
>> to someone who 
>> needs them more.  (And yes, at least in the commercial world, "need" 
>> roughly equates to "willingness to pay" for them.)
>>
> 
> However what you succeed in doing is then creating hundreds of
> dis-contiguous little subnets which will all create the need
> for their own separate little BGP advertisements, when you
> gather together all these unused little bits and odds and
> ends of subnets.  Kind of like gathering up all the bits of
> soap in the house and mashing them into one "bar"
> 
> If there were a horde of small little ISPs out there all needing
> IPv4, who right now we were slicing little subnets off of the
> big block of soap, this might make sense.
> 
> But post IPv4 runout we won't have that, we will just have large
> porky ISP's still needing huge hunks of soap at roughly the
> same rate they were using them before.  And how many mashed-together
> soap bars will we have to give them before all the little pieces
> of soap in the house are gone, I wonder?  And how clean will
> the result be?
> 
> Ted
>