[arin-ppml] "Millions of Internet Addresses Are Lying Idle"(slashdot)
farmer at umn.edu
Tue Oct 21 16:35:30 EDT 2008
On 21 Oct 2008 Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2008, at 5:02 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > I think it's still worth the effort, not because it will delay the
> > need to migrate to IPv6, but because ARIN's position becomes a lot
> > more defensible come Exhaustion Day. If there are hundreds of
> > millions of addresses still out there, idle or even abandoned,
> > that's a guaranteed PR black eye and possibly a legal problem. If
> > ARIN, in the meantime, has done its due diligence in reclaiming what
> > can be reclaimed and all addresses are actually in use, it's a lot
> > harder for folks to criticize us -- or for other regulators to step
> > in and take over.
> Bingo. Very well said.
I must agree that ARIN must be able to demonstrate due diligence in
reclaiming what can reasonably be reclaimed. If not, why would anyone
take ARIN seriously when we says the transition to IPv6 is the only way
forward in the long run. That said, we need to be very clear in pointing out
this is only the most temporary reprieve and is only being done to show
good faith in ARIN's stewardship role for IPv4.
At the very least all the low hanging fruit needs to be reclaimed (and all the
dried up prunes and raisins need to be swept up off the floor too, to extend
the metaphor.) An important balance needs to be struck here, enough
effort to show good faith in reclaiming the obvious stuff, without making futile
heroic efforts that in the end will only divert us from the transition to IPV6.
And unfortunately, I believe this means dealing with the questions of Legacy
Resource holders. I believe that we need to make it clear to Legacy
Holders, that any resources that are not in use must be reclaimed one way
or another. But again there is a balance needed here too. How much effort
as a community do we want Legacy holders to put in to reclamation vs.
transitioning to IPv6?
I'm trying to figure out how to find this balance within my own organization.
Trust me, this is not a trivial thing to do for an organization that has been
using Internet number resources for more than 20 years.
Actually, I think what is requested in 10a of the LRSA is actually very
reasonable. Basically it requests that Legacy holders, "voluntarily return to
ARIN the portion of all Included Number Resources that it is unlikely to need
over the next 10 years." It also might be a reasonable to expect in
exchange for retaining these resources that Legacy holders help lead the
way in the transition to IPv6. Placing an expectation that to retain the
benefits of early adoption of IPv4 that there is an expectation of early
adoption of IPv6 could also be reasonable and beneficial to the community
as a whole.
We need to be a community of creative and critical thinkers right now. We
must examine all of our orthodoxies. We must reinforce the orthodoxy that
is still valid and dispose of those that are not in this time of change.
David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815
2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818
More information about the ARIN-PPML