[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Recovery Fund
kkargel at polartel.com
Mon Nov 24 17:12:12 EST 2008
> -----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
> 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
> > reduced but you are pretty much at the same expenditure level, you
> > stretch things out by robbing Peter to pay Paul, but in reality all
> > are doing is digging a deeper hole. The thing you really need to do
> > find a new job (IPv6). Of course you have the option of reducing
> > expenditures, but that really does little to prepare for the future
> > unemployment insurance (IPv4) ceases to come in.
> I would not argue that there is an alternative to IPv6 in the long
> 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
> paying jobs, one of which is multiple-layers of NAT (e.g., peanut
> & jelly sandwiches). As a technologist I would argue that multiple
> layers of NAT are technologically inferior to both our existing v4
> 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
> NAT, unless there is a cheaper alternative. Will an address market be
> 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
> will the policies that have served us well in the past continue to
> us well in the future? In answering that question we have to
> the underlying assumptions in those policies. And so I will ask: what
> underlying assumptions argue for a first-come-first-serve approach
> 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
> subject that people and organizations who do not move to IPv6 somehow
> deserve what they get. Policies cannot afford to take such an
> because the people and organizations we are talking about serve and
> part of the community. I doubt that many government agencies
> 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)
> on the community?
> Consider this last one carefully: government agencies are MOST put at
> 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.
US government organizations are not only considering conversion, but are
already mandated to currently provide IPv6 connectivity on their
backbones. This mandate was proclaimed way back in 2005. The same is
true of many global governments, of whom the US is not the leading edge.
US DoT are already using IPv6 on government circuits.. I don't know
where you are getting your facts but these were fallacies that only
One more statement, while it is good and necessary to maintain IPv4 for
existing networks who do not wish to evolve, I do not think there is any
moral imperative (in fact I think it is impossible) to maintain a steady
supply of IPv4 for all comers forever. You can't get blood from a rock.
Attempting to maintain a limitless supply of a finite resource is a
certain way to fail.
More information about the ARIN-PPML