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

[Chris Engel]

The primary determining factor for whether an allocation of an IPv4 address space (IMO) is justified should be based on whether the applicant has reasonable ability to predict who will be connecting to the address or not.

If the applicant has no ability to predict who might be connecting to that address (examples: an e-mail server, a webserver used to host sites intended for the general public), the request should generally be granted because there is no reasonable method of providing access to the resource without a public address.

However, if the applicant can reasonably predict who will need to access the address space then the request should be denied because that access can be accomplished by other means, such as the use of VPN's and a Private Address space ( examples: Smart Meter's that will be accessed by a utility company and it's affiliates, workstations at a company that only connect to each other).

Basically the criteria should be that the address provides services to individual/devices that cannot be predicted in ADVANCE of the provision of service.


Christopher Engel

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of arin-ppml-request at arin.net
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:00 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [SPAM] - ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 52, Issue 13 - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses


Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
        arin-ppml at arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        arin-ppml-request at arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        arin-ppml-owner at arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Straw poll on special policy for electric     energy industry
      (Ted Mittelstaedt)
   2. Re: Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations to some  categoryof
      organization (Ted Mittelstaedt)
   3. Re: Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations to some  categoryof
      organization (James Hess)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:52:57 -0700
From: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
To: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Straw poll on special policy for electric
        energy industry
Message-ID: <4ACD37E9.2040708 at ipinc.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Randy Bush wrote:
>> The policy I would suggest is a blanket policy: IPv4 addresses are
>> available to ARIN members if and only if they can demonstrate
>> progress on IPv6 deployment.
>
> i think, to get ipv4 space, they should also swear to vote for pigasus
> and not employ people with blue eyes.
>

Blue eyes?  I thought it was supposed to only be people who are black on the right side, and white on the left. ;-)

Ted


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:48:59 -0700
From: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations to some
        categoryof organization
Message-ID: <4ACD450B.2030708 at ipinc.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
>
>> The point is that we have a REAL shortage looming of IPv4 addresses
>> and that network operators are not yet ready to use IPv6 addresses as
>> a substitute. That is a genuine shortage of supply, and I believe
>> that it is justification for policies which specifically target new
>> entrants. Whether the policies only target smart utility networks, or
>> whether they go further and target any new entrants, I think that
>> there is sufficient reason to think that such policies would pass
>> muster.
>
> The heated discussion about a Smart Grid requiring large amounts of IP
> addresses and potentially being refused IPv4 addresses is one which
> made me smile. Watch how things are going to get hotter as fewer IPv4
> addresses will be available.
>
> Having now spent more than 2 years speaking personally to hundreds of
> people about getting their organisation to embrace IPv6 ASAP, and
> being told that there's still plenty of time and that the pain level
> isn't high enough for them to even think about it, reading this week's
> messages made me smile.
>
> Talks of banning IPv4 allocations to some category of organisation
> remind me of the old, pre-internet Telco days. I am absolutely
> astonished that we're even discussing this! What we are witnessing
> here, is regression.

No, we are not.  If you have studied history or how government functions or have any education you will know that a great many political problems are NOT solvable with win-win scenarios.

Problems cause humans grief.  There are 8 well-defined stages of grief and loss, and these are (not coincidentally) the same stages that people use when dealing with problems like losing IPv4.  Here they are:

1) Shock.
2) Denial
3) prevarication/equivocation/bargaining
4) Guilt
5) Anger
6) Depression
7) Resignation
8) Acceptance

This "electric utilities must be denied IPv4" could quite possibly be nothing more than an expression of Step 3  (if we can maybe deny "those guys" all that IPv4 that we might avoid the catastrophe)

> It's going to hurt, and a lot faster than you think, if proper
> leadership is not shown very soon. By that, I mean, roadmaps,
> strategic and risk analysis, and a cost of:
> (1) how much will IPv6 implementation cost region-wide
> (2) how much will *lack* of IPv6 implementation cost region-wide
>

Oliver, I wonder if you are really only at Step 5 of your stages of IPv4 loss?  You sound angry that "proper leadership" isn't being shown.  I have to ask, for what end?

What will proper leadership accomplish?  Will it extend IPv4's life? People seem to think that if we tell everyone IPv4 is ending that they are going to drop everything and jump on IPv6.  But, human nature being what it is, wouldn't the more likely outcome of increased education be for people to all jump in now and try to "stock up" on IPv4?  Kind of the "I'll get mine and screw the other guy??  Then the end of IPv4 will come much, much sooner than expected.  Quite the opposite of extending it's life, I think.

Ted

> Kind regards,
>



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:35:47 -0500
From: James Hess <mysidia at gmail.com>
To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations to some
        categoryof organization
Message-ID:
        <6eb799ab0910071935i2ad94e8fqffce20056ff79150 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
ARIN-PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml

End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 52, Issue 13
*****************************************