[arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern

[Joe Maimon]

William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>   
>> Are you in favor of changing anything at all or can you think of no better
>> course of action than to continue exactly as is now?
>>     
>
> Joe,
>
> IMO, it's time now to think about what we do *beyond* the end of the
> free pool when IPv4 addressing policy changes to a zero-sum game.
> Where giving one org new addresses means taking them from someone
> else.
> The address market strategy might work. Ought to work. But we should
> probably make some contingency plans.
>   

Ration, Reclaim, Return, Reuse.

Those are the alternatives to transfers based on market principles. I 
greatly prefer the market which is why I advocated for it, but policy 
for what to do with reclaimed space after depletion is still needed and 
any approach to it that doesnt consist of giving it all to whoever can 
show need will smack of rationing.

And in the strictest sense of the word they are correct, it is 
rationing. However supply and demand markets are also a form of 
rationing, so the word in and of itself does not carry automatic 
negative connotations.

Only in a worst case scenario where neither transfers or returns are 
meeting even a portions of needs and ipv6 is not obviating ipv4 need 
should any attention be given to reclaimation of non-abandoned resources.

> As for changes to the policy right now to try to slow the rate of
> consumption, frankly it's far to late in the day. We'd waste time and
> acrimony to gain months if we're lucky.
>
> That's my 2 cents.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>   
I think we have one more real opportunity to advance depletion polices 
from start to implementation before depletion.

Joe