[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves

[Milton L Mueller]

Got it. That makes sense, it improves predictability. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander, Daniel [mailto:Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:40 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves
> 
> 
> 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.