[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 110: Preservation of minimal IPv4 Resources for New and Small Organizations and for IPv6 Transition

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 23, 2010, at 10:24 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:

>> We should consider the cost of failure, of being wrong, that 
>> the ipv6 soup is stone soup with just the stone.
> 
> Quite a low risk of that considering how widely deployed IPv6 is
> currently, carrying the same level of traffic as the entire IPv4
> Internet in 1999.
> 
>> I dont believe it is defensible to stand up and say that we 
>> knew this was coming and we still could not agree to spare a 
>> bit of space to try and protect those likely to be most vulnerable.
> 
> In another thread it was clear that it is possible to set up
> IPv6 only services with a little bit of help from DNS service
> providers and email service providers that already have IPv4
> addresses.
> 
>> What you might call tough love may be interpreted quite 
>> differently by others.
> 
> Everything is interpreted differently by other people.
> 
> I have yet to see a concrete example of a scenario in which
> ARIN could make things better by giving out small amounts of
> IPv4 address space, after everyone else has been FORCED into
> IPv6 deployment by IPv4 exhaustion. 
> 
> It is too late to do this kind of thing. IPv4 exhaustion will
> happen in your next fiscal year. There could be a run on addresses
> at any moment that would pull that date closer to us by several
> months. Even passing this policy proposal would pull the date closer.
> 
I believe this policy would merely tighten up the requirements for
gaining access to the /10 set aside by an earlier policy for transitional
technologies.

While I have not made my mind up about this proposal yet, I do
not believe it will pull exhaustion closer.


> When the police order people out of a hurricane strike zone, ahead
> of landfall, they are willfully damaging small businesses that
> might be able to continue operating during the hurricane. They
> do this on two counts, first by forcing the owners and staff
> to evacuate, and secondly by forcing their potential customers
> to evacuate. Nobody seriously takes the police to task for
> being unfair to small business while the Macdonalds' restaurants
> away from the landfall zone do extra business.
> 
Not a great analogy because the small businesses away from the
landfall zone also do extra business.
> 

Owen