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

[Scott Leibrand]

When we (the AC) discussed it, we had hoped to get feedback from the 
community on what people thought the results of the survey meant, and how 
we should modify 2008-2 to reflect it.  We've gotten some of that already, 
which is good.  If anyone else has any other constructive input, I'd love 
to hear it.

We'll definitely be posting a revised 2008-2 soon, giving plenty of time 
to debate further.

-Scott

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 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
>>>
>