[arin-ppml] Policy to reduce inefficiency in IPv4 address use

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Thu May 7 01:35:28 EDT 2009

I would agree that "waste" is a pretty good word to describe the 
behavior we're seeing now.  Perhaps an even less emotionally charged 
word would be "inefficiency".

I think we're all in agreement that, whatever you call it, such 
inefficiency of IPv4 address use is not contrary to current policy.  If 
anyone can think of a good way to tighten up policy that would result in 
more efficient use of IPv4 addresses, in time to make a difference, and 
without much collateral damage, I'm all ears.  Keep in mind that we've 
tried at least one such policy proposal already that didn't get 
consensus (IPv4 soft landing), so any suggestions will need to improve 
on that.

I, for one, believe that most of the inefficiency will get wrung out of 
the system as we hit free pool exhaustion, especially now that we'll 
have a transfer policy in place.  I understand the argument that such a 
course of events is unfair, and that any actions that would be taken 
when IPv4 addresses are scarce should be taken now.  I'm just not sure 
how to administratively enforce that.

As a possibly interesting tangent, this problem actually bears some 
similarities to the cap and trade debate going on right now in 
Congress.  Many people are advocating for an allocation of permits to 
existing emitters, to reduce the disruptive impact of the cap.  That's 
more or less the default situation we have with the current IPv4 policy 
framework, where existing IPv4 address holders become the suppliers when 
a transfer market develops.  On the other hand are people who think that 
the government should auction off 100% of the emissions permits, and 
redistribute the money in some way.  But I'm not sure what the analogous 
policy would be for IPv4, since ARIN is a nonprofit that doesn't really 
have the authority to (for example) collect and redistribute large sums 
of money auctioning off the remaining IPv4 addresses...


Jon Radel wrote:
> William Herrin wrote:
>> NAT = conserves IP addresses.
>> Meets criteria for NAT-compatible device = could be built with NAT
>> Not built with NAT + millions of devices = consumes millions of IP 
>> addresses
>> Not built with NAT + could be + consumes millions = hoarding
>> If you got "technology limitations = hoarding" from that, you ain't
>> readin' it right.
> I would say that your little equations show some anecdotal evidence of 
> "waste."  "Hoarding" generally carries implications about intent which 
> you're not, and probably can't, demonstrate.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list