[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Addresses - Last Call

[Tom Vest]

On Jan 1, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> The problem here, Milton, is that you assume redistribution based on
>> relative need is required.
>
> Yes, indeed I do. So do the people in the (gray) market and many  
> others. If the transition period exceeds three years, which it  
> probably will, any policy position that does not allow for legal,  
> organized transfers is just plain irresponsible, and dismissive talk  
> of "short term pain" (undoubtedly, pain that YOU will not feel, but  
> someone else will) is not persuasive.
>
>> first-com/first-
>> served is the potential for early hoarding. However, hoarding can be
>> mostly avoided by requiring justified need in order to obtain the
>> resource and reducing (to the extent possible) the rewards available
>
> The early hoarding took place in 1982 - 97, my friend.
>
>> Those organizations who want IP connectivity after the IPv4 free pool
>> is exhausted can move to IPv6 and make use of transitional
>> technologies. True, the current state of those technologies is less
>> than ideal,
>
> oh well, so what if you lose internet connectivity for a while, or  
> have to spend 4 times what you expected or are able to afford. I  
> think i will collect these statements and publish them five years on.
>
>> but, organizations moving to IPv6 will, I suspect, drive
>> significant and rapid improvement in both the transitional tools,  
>> and,
>> the availability of IPv6 connectivity to what is currently a mostly
>> IPv4 only internet.
>
> What if what you "suspect" is wrong? If I am wrong about the need  
> for a transfer market, nothing bad happens, people just don't use  
> it. Fine with me. As I said at the IGF, it's primarily an insurance  
> policy, and there are very few downsides to instituting it.
>
> Your only argument against it is that it somehow detracts or slows  
> down the migration to v6. I don't buy that. I think that if  
> migration to IPv6 depends on not having v4 transfers there are far  
> more fundamental things wrong with v6 than we suspect, and the  
> absence of transfer markets isn't going to save it. Indeed, that  
> argument is so weak it makes me wonder what your real concern is.
>
>> I think it is perfectly reasonable for the following scenario:
>>
>> 1.      Status quo until IANA free pool is exhausted.
>> 2.      ARIN continues to issue under status quo until ARIN
>> free pool's
>> largest remaining block is a single /6
>> 3.      ARIN continues to issue what it can without invading
>> that /6  under
>> status quo rules.
>> 4.      Applications which cannot be satisfied under status
>> quo rules as
>> stated above are rejected and applicants are encouraged to apply for
>> IPv6.
>> 5.      Applicants which receive IPv6 and require IPv4 space for
>> transitional technologies to interconnect their IPv6 networks to the
>> existing IPv4 world apply for small pieces of the remaining /6 under
>> recently adopted policy (2008-5 if I recall correctly).
>
> Tell me what goes seriously wrong with this scenario if you insert  
> "or to get addresses via transfers" at the end of #4.
> Seriously, what is the downside? The life of v4 is extended for 4-5  
> years to help those with trouble making the transition? Why is that  
> bad?
>
>> A similar transition will occur when the world runs out of petroleum
>> products if we don't destroy the environment first. Some other stored
>> energy mechanism will be adopted. The transition will be painful (as
>> will the IPv6 transition), but, when there is no more oil, there will
>> be a migration to some other technology.
>
> Owen, try to imagine what the petroleum transition would be like if  
> the price of oil was fixed and could not rise. I suspect you don't  
> really grasp this, based on your comments over the past few months,  
> so I don't look forward to the answer.
>
> There will never be "no more oil," there will be a more or less  
> gradual adjustment in our use of oil to reflect its price. Take  
> price change out of the equation however, and all hell breaks loose.
>
> Based on actual consumer responses to the gasoline price increases  
> this past summer, many policy analysts are saying we don't need CAFE  
> standards at all any more, we just need to increase the price of  
> fuel via taxation and consumers will stop buying gas guzzlers. Much  
> simpler and more effective than regulating technical efficiency  
> standards.

...Only in the case of the Internet, the oil companies / scarce  
resource distributors are the only ones who can make it possible for  
the alternative fuel vehicles to work, for anyone, for as long as they  
continue to exist.

Once this fundamental difference is understood, oil makes for an  
excellent analogy.

TV