[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment

[Paul Vixie]

> > ...  if the AC can design and accept experiments that would inform this
> > policy, i feel sure that we could get the experiments run by various
> > nonpartisans with expertise in the area.
> >
> > paul
> 
>    Renesys did a lightning talk on this topic at NANOG 41 --
> <http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/renesys-lighting.pdf>.  They
> have a page with a few provider's policies.  Both AT&T and Level3 have a /24
> limit.
> 
>  -Larry

do we expect these policies to remain in force, or loosen, or tighten, after
iana runout occurs and there is pressure to further deaggregate the ipv4 space
and fill in all these little holes?  (and if so, why, or if not, why not?)

i think that the industry's early reaction to iana runout and/or RIR runout
will be to loosen filters since a lot of address blocks and therefore a lot
of potential customers would be hidden by the filters described above (/24)
and the initial desire will be to continue growing since a lot of the big guys
have megaroute cores.  competition of the form "i'll charge you less but i'll
have to NAT you" won't always win vs. competition of the form "i'll charge
you the same, or i'll charge you more, but i won't NAT you."  smaller ISP's
without megaroute cores won't have good leverage if they want to ignore these
routes.  hierarchical routing, as a principle, will take an arrow in the neck,
and won't return until non-hierarchical growth proves measureably impossible.

what do others think?