[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[John Curran]

At 5:34 PM -0800 2/11/08, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >The resolution
> >states that availability IPv4 space "cannot be assured indefinitely",
>>which is not the same as saying "shall not be efficiently managed
> >now that IPv6 is here"...
>
>Your relying on semantic games.  The intent and thrust of the
>Board statement is pretty clear.

No games - The intent of the Board statement is exactly what
it states: IPv4 space "cannot be assured indefinitely".

>The intent and thrust of this policy change is also pretty clear. 
>The two are at odds.

Interesting...  It didn't appear that way to the ARIN Board,
which specifically asked the ARIN AC to look into the IPv4
IPv6 transition issues and whether any changes to policy
needed to be considered.

In that spirit, it would be good to get your feedback on whether
the proposal is in the best interest of the Internet or not.

>It is unavoidable that any rule will affect some groups negatively.
>That is not a reason for either implementing, or not implementing it.
>We need to be looking at what is best for the Internet, not for
>a subgroup of ISPs.

100% agreement.  The policy proposal is exactly that, a proposal.
It's possible that there is no safe transfer policy that doesn't have
side effects worse than any benefit...   The point is that now there
is a cohesive proposal on the table, and the community can discuss
the benefits and risks in concrete terms rather than the abstract.

>Your welcome to argue that migrating to IPv6 is not in the best interest
>of the Internet.  Maybe it isn't, and we should forget it and be
>concentrating on schemes to extend IPv4 indefinitely.

I'm here to help make sure that open discussion occurs, and
not much else.  My particular opinion on this proposal is moot
(unless it reaches the ARIN Board and needs to be considered
at that time based on the community's support, openness of
discussion, and ARIN's overall mission).

/John