[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF

[David Conrad]

Raul,

On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Raul Echeberria wrote:
>> > like it, the world becomes set in stone after IPv4 runout.  Haves
>> > have and have nots have not and there's no way for that to change.
>> To be blunt, this strikes me as astoundingly hallucinatory.
>>
>> Without some form of transfer policy, ARIN simply becomes irrelevant
>> as address consumers go to the "black" market in order to meet their
>> requirements.
>
> Or they adopt IPv6.

Ah, if it were only that easy... :-)

More seriously, as can be seen from some of the discussion here, it  
isn't clear to me that there is consensus within the RIR membership  
that this is the right way to go.  It seems some feel IPv4+NAT(+NAT+NAT 
+...) is a reasonable model for the future of the Internet.  In such a  
world, making the assumption that "the world becomes set in stone"  
after the last unallocated address is allocated just seems crazy to  
me.  But perhaps I'm confused.

> Which are the factors that will make take one decision or other is  
> an interesting discussion.

Indeed. However past discussions appear to have established that "good  
stewardship" does not include taking _active_ steps in encouraging one  
technology or the other, so the role of the RIRs is quite limited...

Regards,
-drc