[arin-ppml] the Transfer Policy Argument Space

John Schnizlein schnizlein at isoc.org
Wed Sep 3 09:48:30 EDT 2008

Mapping the space is a good start.  Thank you for proposing it.

Keeping the dimensions of this as nearly orthogonal as possible should  
help. I propose factoring your #2 and #3 into these two:

2. IPv6 will eventually succeed, because of the inadequacy of IPv4  
addressing to support the growth of the Internet.

3. How should the resulting scarcity of routable IPv4 addresses be  
managed, with arbitrary administrative rules, or with constrained  

I would also add, because it seems to be the elephant in the room,

4. How much burden on the routing infrastructure (DFZ) would be  
produced by the de-aggregation that would result from a transfer  
policy?  For example, is the constraint that transfers must be within  
the space administered by a single RIR necessary?


On 2008Sep3, at 9:20 AM, David Farmer wrote:

> ... Therefore, in this thread I would like some help to map out the  
> argument
> space we are working with. ...
> So to that end, I'm going try to start, this is only a start, please  
> help by
> adding or refining the arguments, but argue them in different  
> threads please:
> 1. IPv6 is a failure and can not succeed, therefore we must extend  
> the life of
> IPv4 indefinitely beyond free poll exhaustion, a transfer policy is  
> part of that;
> 2. IPv6 will eventually succeed, however we need to keep IPv4 viable  
> until
> the transiton is complete, a transfer policy will help keep IPv4  
> viable beyond
> free poll exhaustion;
> 3. IPv6 will eventually succeed, but only if there is a forcing  
> function to move
> people from IPv4, free poll exhaustion is this forcing function;

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list