[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves

[Jo Rhett]

On Dec 2, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 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
...
> 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.


The logic is obvious.  I'm saying that the logic doesn't impress me  
that this benefit for the smaller orgs is helpful in any real sense.

For example: if you take money out of the budget to support a military  
base near a depressed region of the country, you are funding the  
military and trying to improve economics in that area.  If you do this  
carefully, you can stimulate the economy all over the country.

In comparison, a set side to hold money to give only to say, people  
that raise penguins is harder to understand.  It helps the penguin  
breeders, certainly, but how does it do more than that?

NOTE: My employer would actually benefit from this proposal, because  
we'd be looking for small segments exactly this size.   So I am  
perhaps shooting myself in the foot when I ask this question.  This is  
sheer curiosity -- does the author see a benefit to the larger  
community that I don't quite grasp?

-- 
Jo Rhett
senior geek

Silicon Valley Colocation
Support Phone: 408-400-0550