[arin-ppml] Easy vs Hard (was Re: Policy Proposal: Last Minute Assistance for Small ISPs)
cgrundemann at gmail.com
Tue Jul 28 12:42:07 EDT 2009
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:23, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> David Farmer wrote:
>> How would you envision this working with other policy proposals? Such as
>> 93. Predicable IPv4 Run Out by Prefix Size and 94. Predictable IPv4 Run Out
>> by Allocation Window.
> I think both of those proposals will suffer the same fate as
> 2007-05-02, "IPv4 Soft Landing"
> Unless my read of the ARIN participatory membership is incorrect,
> people are generally opposed to trying to keep chewing the
> gum once all the flavor is gone.
> There's not a lot of point to making the IPv4 requesting
> criteria so stringent that practically nobody can get an
> allocation. It reminds me of North Korea's 4 authorized "Christian"
> churches that are attended by nobody, and do nothing, but allow
> the regime to claim they are tolerant.
> Sure, if you make criteria for IPv4 so tough that nobody can
> meet it, you can claim that ARIN hasn't run out of IPv4 yet
> for the next 3-4 decades.
>> Would you do this instead of one or both of those
>> or would you do this and one or both of those too?
> I'm generally opposed to both of those proposals but my gut
> feel is they will be shot down anyway so I don't really feel
> "threatened" by them, nor do I really even bother to think
> about them. When I came up with
> this proposal I wasn't viewing it as an "opposition" proposal
> to those proposals.
> I can see, though, how someone might consider this to be diametrically
> opposed to those proposals. I'm suggesting we make it easier to get IPv4 at
> the last minute - those proposals are making it harder.
I disagree that proposals 93 and 94 would make it harder to get IPv4.
They would allow Orgs to get less IPv4 at once; which I guess could be
stated as "making it harder for an Org to get large amounts of IPv4"
or even "harder for an Org to get the desired amount of IPv4" but that
in turn will make it easier (read: possible) for other Orgs to get
some IPv4 (vs none).
Neither of those proposals make the requirements any more strict -
which is how I would define "making it harder."
> But this depends on how you view IPv4 runout. I view IPv4 runout
> as a fundamental fact, no amount of wriggling on the hook is
> going to get the worm off, it's gonna happen no matter how much
> IPv4 we dig out of the archives.
> Others who may view IPv4 runout as something that we actually have
> control over, and can manipulate, would probably feel that a
> proposal like mine undercuts the entire IPv4 addressing scheme.
> If people who are actively opposing those proposals want to use
> this proposal as a hill to rally behind, I don't care one way or
> the other. It wasn't intended as such, however.
> Where I'm coming from is simple - we all know that there's small
> fry out there, we all know that some of those small fry are gonna
> get stomped hard by IPv4 runout, and since the small fry definitely
> didn't cause IPv4 runout, I just felt it was kind of unfair to allow
> that to happen without throwing them a lifeline. After all it's
> not like it would really be a lot of skin off our collective nose
> to do this for them for a few years, and it would mean a great
> deal of difference to many of them.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML