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

[John Schnizlein]

The point that seems to me to be missing from the commentary in this  
thread is that the argument Milton and the ITU "experts" make about  
management of IPv6 addresses based on issues with IPv4 addresses is a  
classic non sequitur fallacy.  Because of the huge increase in the  
size of IPv6 addresses, conservation of address allocation is not the  
issue it is with IPv4 addresses.  Arguments about relative scarcity,  
allocation efficiency, recovery, and transfer that are contentious  
with IPv4 addresses simply do not apply when there are so many IPv6  
addresses.  The technical issue of conserving routing entries in the  
default-free zone is still relevant, but plays little or no part in  
the ITU arguments.

My impression is that the ITU is "fighting the last war".

John

On 2009Oct13, at 2:36 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> Geoff Huston wrote:
>
>> If we really want to submarine any hope whatsoever of a transition  
>> to IPv6 this form of meddling in the address distribution framework  
>> is about as good a negative intervention as one could possibly  
>> imagine!
>
> A market-based ip allocation scheme encourages
> choices that are lower initial cost instead of choices that are
> higher initial cost - even though the higher initial cost choices
> may have a far, far greater long term payback.