[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves

[Stephen Sprunk]

Jo Rhett wrote:
> I'm not sure I see what goal you are trying to accomplish with this  
> proposal.  Why is it better to cut off larger providers to ensure that  
> smaller organizations can continue to get space?   This is good for  
> the smaller organization obviously.   Why is it good for the entire  
> ARIN region?

Isn't the logic obvious?  A handful of large ISPs are consuming the 
_vast_ majority of the IPv4 address space [1].  If those orgs are 
effectively cut off when there is a /9 left, the remaining 3200+ orgs 
will still have an additional year or two's supply for their 
comparatively modest needs.  Those large orgs would not have been able 
to meet their needs for more than a few months with that same /9 
anyways, so they're not really affected much -- and they're also the 
orgs with the most addresses internally that could be more efficiently 
shuffled around and the _only_/ /orgs that have enough market power to 
get IPv6 deployment going for real (e.g. by providing purchasing 
pressure on laggard equipment vendors to implement it).

That's not to say I support this proposal, but it does have a certain 
appeal.  However, I'm not sure that further efforts to extend the life 
of IPv4, even if only for smaller orgs, is in the long-term interests of 
the community.

S

[1] http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html#ipv4org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3241 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20081202/c303bf56/attachment.bin>