[arin-ppml] DraftPolicy 2009-1: TransferPolicy (UsingtheEmergencyPDP)
kkargel at polartel.com
Fri Mar 27 11:24:32 EDT 2009
From: Bill Darte [mailto:BillD at cait.wustl.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:23 PM
To: Kevin Kargel; ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml]DraftPolicy 2009-1: TransferPolicy
>>Please, briefly, explain to me your perspective.
>>If not a transfer policy, or market if you insist, what then?
>>What is your vision of how the community would move forward from
here....through IANA free pool exhaustion, through RIR exhaustion....
>>What do people who consider that they need IPv4 addresses do when they run
out....what do people do when they consider IPv6 too risky to their
performance (business) or >>business plan?
>>What exactly do you propose ARIN and all those needing addresses do?
>>I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm really interested. I've seen you
express at length why a transfer market is no good. Expose your thinking on
what happens going >>forward.
I don't think it is up to ARIN to decide how people should run their
businesses. It is not up to ARIN to engineer business plans for companies.
It is up to companies to develop business plans that are functional within
the constraints that exist. It is just up to ARIN to shepherd the resources
that exist. ARIN cannot magically create IPv4, well, sort of they have by
supporting extending the addressing via IPv6.
Going forward IPv4 runs to exhaustion. The community has proven to be
innovative and cooperative. I believe this will continue in the future.
Network administrators will work with their peers to keep things running
within whatever rules and standards exist.
Companies that have planned forward will thrive, companies that have not
planned or have planned badly will not thrive. This is pretty much a basic
of business. ARIN is not responsible for companies who refuse or don't
bother to look forward. Lack of planning on their part does not constitute
an emergency for you.
ARIN has done a great job up until this back-door implementation of the
transfer policy. I continue to laud the past accomplishments of ARIN. We
have a tremendous and self-healing system if we just continue to trust in
I hear much wailing about the black-market dealings in IP's. From what I
have seen this is minor traffic. I believe this will be self limiting.
Companies that pay 100's or thousands of times as much for IP's on the black
market will have a hard time competing with companies that get IP's through
legitimate channels. Granted we will have to be more vigilant against
hijackers, but that is the way it is.
I do think it would behoove us to identify and reclaim abandoned space, but
even that is a stop-gap measure, not a solution.
IPv4 is a finite resource. Nothing we do will extend it in perpetuity. We
may not be doing the community a favor by taping the bandaid ever more
firmly over a festering wound because it will hurt to take it off.
I fear for the future of ARIN. Once we relinquish control of allocation to
a free market in reality ARIN's role is relegated to being a database. I
believe ARIN (or it's function) is necessary for the continued smooth
operation of the Internet. If we turn control over to capitalistic drivers
chaos will reign. If you think about monetary driven and motivated
allocation decisions and where that will take us I am sure you will
I hope that was brief enough. My plea to ARIN is get back on the community
track, and not focus so much about the corporate track. Our biggest
responsibility is to society, not business.
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Kevin Kargel
Sent: Thu 3/26/2009 7:35 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml]DraftPolicy 2009-1: TransferPolicy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of John Schnizlein
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:09 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml]DraftPolicy 2009-1: TransferPolicy
> Are you actually saying you think that creating these tunnels, with
> the side effect of reliance on a third party for security and
> stability, not to mention the profit of the party providing service,
> is better for the Internet than transferring an address to the party
> that wants to reach the (legacy) IPv4-only hosts that will remain on
> the Internet for some time?
Yes, absolutely. There are tunnels already in existence and working. The
cost is much less and the harm is nonexistent. There is a legitimate market
those wanting to reap instant profits can get in to. Go for the v4-v6
Gateway service market. Oh wait, I forgot, Enterprise class routers like
Cisco already do this automatically.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML