[arin-ppml] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocationsto somecategoryof organization

[Kevin Kargel]

Do I remember correctly that there was a discussion about implementing a
general cap on allocation size that would cover this issue without all the
politics?  If we really want to do this perhaps the diminishing cap would
solve the problem.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 2:19 PM
> To: michael.dillon at bt.com; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocationsto
> somecategoryof organization
> 
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20091012/31ad3848/attachment.bin>