[arin-ppml] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations to some categoryof organization

[James Hess]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> Problems cause humans grief.  There are 8 well-defined stages of

Kind of irrelevent..  well,   IPv4  is not lost yet. It's a fact that
there will be V4 address scarcity and exhaustion of free space the
registries can allocate  in 3 or 4 years: will have to be dealt with
in some manner.

> This "electric utilities must be denied IPv4" could quite possibly be
The RIRs don't need to be  allowing anything they have control of that
will  cause undue ACCELERATION of the run-out .

It would be a terrible idea for ARIN to discriminate based on the
identity of the applicant.       Instead they should be looking at the
 Intended USE of the addresses,    what kinds of things IPs are to be
assigned to, eg the justification.

To that end, it is sensible, that the registries deny applicants that
are plans for massive networks (such as ones which would require a
/8)  and consist mostly  of  non-computer devices that are not crit.
internet infrastructure and that don't interact with the public,   and
 give priority to applicants  who have  more traditional computer
devices on their networks.

Such as computer workstations  and computer-based servers,
justifiable in number for their use.


Basically, i'm saying:  if  an org applies for a  /8  for computer
workstations,   and they are  assigning enough IPs to workstations to
allow it  (and they can show they have all that infrastructure and
need), then the app could be accepted.
Because  (despite the unusually large request) they are connecting
conventional computing devices.

On the other hand..  If an  org applies for a  /8   to assign to  1  million
coffee pots an IP address,  the app  should be rejected.
Even  if they have all those coffee pots,   and it's a business
requirement that their outsourced   coffee pot management
contractor  have public IP connectivity to them.


--
-J