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

[John Santos]

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, John Santos wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> > 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 a
> > s 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.
> > 
> 
> I think you are confusing "need for IP addresses" with "need for IPv4
> addresses."
> 
> The proposed application apparently requires new network infrastructure
> (wireless from the electric meters to local access points with order of
> 10 access points needed to service a medium-sized city.)
> 
> They may need IP addresses for each meter, but they certainly don't
> need IPv4 addresses.
> 
> They may also need IP addresses for each access point, which may need to
> connect to existing IPv4 infrastructure, but that's an at least 3 orders
> of magnitude smaller problem.
> 
> 
> Maybe the rule should be "new types of infrastructure (as opposed to
> extending existing infrastructure) must be IPv6."
> 
> New ISPs or new end users (businesses, colleges, govt agencies, etc.)
> providing traditional services similar to those already provided by
> existing ISPs or existing end users would fall under extending existing
> infrastructure and would be entitled to request IPv4, though they should
> be encouraged to use IPv6 or RFC 1918 private space.
> 
> New uses, such as refrigerators, electric meters, and so forth, and new 
> types of networks such as wide-area wireless networks, should be classed
> as "new infrastructure" and required to use IPv6.  After all, the principle
> objection to using IPv6 seems to be limitations of existing equipment
> and the cost of upgrading/replacing it with IPv6-capable equipment, and
> these objections don't apply when building a network with all new
> equipment.
> 

P.S.  I left out a paragraph...

Cell phones, ideally, should fall under the "new infrastructure" category, 
but that horse has (most likely) already left the barn.


> 
> > 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> John Santos
> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
> 781-861-0670 ext 539
> 
> 

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539