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

[Milton L Mueller]

I haven't intervened in this debate even though it is a highly interesting one. One element seems to be lacking from the discussion. To me, it is an incredibly clear demonstration of the complete breakdown of the needs-based allocation principle as soon as scarcity arises.

What Michael Dillon has been saying, in effect, is that organizations that can demonstrate a perfectly viable technical "need" for IPv4 addresses shouldn't get them. 

Maybe this is so obvious to all of you that it's going unstated, or maybe its an unstated assumption and it will clarify debates going forward if this is more openly acknowledged. 

If you abandon "demonstrated need" and are _not_ willing to use prices or some other neutral, market-based rationing principle, then all that is left is finer and finer classification and prioritization of specific uses. And down that road lies a form of ever more intrusive central planning. I.e., the RIR has to step in and decide for organizations whether it is better for them to base their plans on IPv4 or to re-engineer their plans based on a migration to IPv6.

However you resolve such a debate, let's at least openly recognize and acknowledge that "need" is gone as a rationing principle. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of michael.dillon at bt.com
> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 12:34 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations to
> somecategoryof organization
> 
> > In terms of policy  "embedded device"   seems like a good point to
> > identify in policy for denying massive V4 allocations.  We
> > certainly don't need need to be writing another policy in 6
> > months when
> > technology X   in industry B  is in a similar position.
> 
> There seems to be some level of support for a policy which
> restricts the amount of IPv4 addresses that can be
> allocated for the purpose of embedded system devices that
> are not conventional PCs or servers.
> 
> Since one might expect that there would be no issues with
> giving these devices globally registered IPv4 addresses
> *AFTER* the transition to IPv6, it seems wiser to phrase
> this as a limited time moratorium rather than an outright
> ban. The immediate effect is the same, but we can make sure
> that it expires automatically when people's attention is
> placed on more pressing IPv6 related issues in the future.
> 
> Does anyone have ideas on how to word such a policy, where
> to put it in the NRPM, etc.?
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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.