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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Then I would encourage you to get your rewrite done asap, so
the rewrite can be further debated and examined.  Every day
that you do not post a rewrite merely makes people think
that your uninterested in suggestions.

Ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:sleibrand at internap.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:47 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Further revisions to 2008-2?
> 
> 
> 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
> > 
>