[arin-ppml] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations tosomecategoryof organization

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> 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. 

Wrong!
Back in the early days of the IPv4 address registry, we
had specific policy relating to web server virtual hosts
so that people could not justify one IP address per
web domain. In other words, we were saying that since
the technical possibility of virtual hosting exists
and makes it cheap and easy and reliable for multiple
domains to share an IP address, you should use it.
And if you don't use virtual hosting, then we will
not accept your count of addresses needed.

"Technical need" always refers to the technology of the
day and its possibilities. In this case, embedded systems
like Smart Grid can certainly use IPv6 for their communications
so we want to forewarn them that we will judge any
application requests in that way. And maybe we should even
include mobile devices like cellphones in this restrictive
policy.

> If you abandon "demonstrated need" 

InterNIC and ARIN policies were never based on demonstrated
need but on technical need, i.e. the need imposed by the
technology of the day.

> And down 
> that road lies a form of ever more intrusive central 
> planning.

Down any road lies the future in which IPv6 will be widely
deployed, and any IPv4 moratorium will be lifted.

--Michael Dillon