[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves

[Alexander, Daniel]

As the author, let me clarify. 

The benefits this proposal may bring to a smaller organization is a
positive byproduct, and not the primary intent. The primary intent is to
ensure some resources remain available during a stable period of time
that businesses can plan around. 

The final reserves of IPv4 space can be consumed by one or two
organizations, leaving all others with very little time to react. This
does not benefit the community. The community could benefit more with
the understanding that everyone can be reasonably confident of obtaining
a small ration of the last resources during a large enough window of
time for alternative business plans to be executed upon. 

-Dan


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:27 AM
To: David Williamson
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
On
> Behalf Of David Williamson
> 
> Some small orgs may
> need an additional allocation/assignment in order to get through the 
> transition.

True. But the same applies to any organization. In the proposal, there
is no clear rationale as to why small orgs should be privileged in this
end game over large orgs. The proposer needs to clarify their rationale,
is it based entirely on distributional equity or some other
consideration? 

> I think I would support this proposal.  I wouldn't mind seeing 
> something added that required a justification to include plans for 
> migration to IPv6, as additional gratuitous consupmtion of IPv4 
> probably shouldn't be encouraged.  The intent seems solid, and I like 
> the simplicity of the policy change.  This will require further 
> thought, but it seems like a good idea at first glance.

I think most ISPs and ARIN's prime directive ought to be the maintenance
of Internet connectivity. ISPs and network operators themselves, not
ARIN, are in the best position to determine whether more v4 addresses
are needed or whether a shift to v6 is required. I don't think we want
to insert ARIN into the middle of this decision.

Besides, a "plan" in this context is nothing more than a promise. Is
ARIN in any position to realistically assess the credibility or
appropriateness of an ipv6 migration plan for hundreds or thousands of
small organizations? Is this a good use of its resources? Is it in any
position to enforce such promises? If not, what is the point of such a
requirement? 

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.