[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Recovery Fund

[Kevin Kargel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear at cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 3:57 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Recovery Fund
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> Thank you for clarifying your position, and attempting to support it.
> The crux of the matter is really in the analogy below:
> 
> On 11/24/08 10:06 PM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> > It is rather like your home budget when you are laid off..  income
is
> > reduced but you are pretty much at the same expenditure level, you
can
> > stretch things out by robbing Peter to pay Paul, but in reality all
you
> > are doing is digging a deeper hole.  The thing you really need to do
is
> > find a new job (IPv6).  Of course you have the option of reducing
> > expenditures, but that really does little to prepare for the future
when
> > unemployment insurance (IPv4) ceases to come in.
> >
> 
> I would not argue that there is an alternative to IPv6 in the long
run.
> However, to carry your analogy further, were I to become unemployed I
> probably would eat less fancy food, take less expensive vacations (if
> any), and perhaps if necessary look for a lower paying job that might
> not satisfy my every desire.  In this case there are a plethora of
lower
> paying jobs, one of which is multiple-layers of NAT (e.g., peanut
butter
> & jelly sandwiches).  As a technologist I would argue that multiple
> layers of NAT are technologically inferior to both our existing v4
world
> and  IPv6 for all manner of reasons.  But when we look at what is
> easiest, and what costs least, I am forced to look at multiple layers
of
> NAT, unless there is a cheaper alternative.  Will an address market be
a
> cheaper alternative?  Perhaps.  One really doesn't know prices until
> we've seen trades.
> 
> And so this leads to the key question that requires careful
examination:
> will the policies that have served us well in the past continue to
serve
> us well in the future?  In answering that question we have to
understand
> the underlying assumptions in those policies.  And so I will ask: what
> underlying assumptions argue for a first-come-first-serve approach
with
> IPv4, and do those assumptions continue to be valid?  Secondly, are
> there other factors that weigh against continued use of FCFS?
> 
> Finally, there is a tone on this list in many of the threads about
this
> subject that people and organizations who do not move to IPv6 somehow
> deserve what they get.  Policies cannot afford to take such an
approach,
> because the people and organizations we are talking about serve and
are
> part of the community.  I doubt that many government agencies
throughout
> the world have even begun to consider conversion.  That includes
> hospitals, social security systems, and, just imagine departments of
> motor vehicles throughout the U.S.  Thus an argument for optimal
> policies that cause least pain through transition.  And so another
> question; what impact will each policy (both current and proposed)
have
> on the community?
> 
> Consider this last one carefully: government agencies are MOST put at
a
> disadvantage with a black market because they are often precluded from
> participation, both by law and by the fact that black marketeers
> generally don't deal with governments.
> 
> Eliot

[Kevin says:] 
I think it boils down to two trains of thought..  if you deny the
existence and inevitability of IPv6 then yes, managing IPv4 to the nth
degree is crucial, and it is imperative to do so yesterday..

However, if you accept that IPv6 exists and is going to be part of our
world and that it will work then IPv4 management becomes almost trivial.

IMHO IPv6 is happening, and ignoring it is burying your head in the
sand.