[arin-ppml] Do people see a middle ground?

[Owen DeLong]

On Aug 1, 2010, at 9:06 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote:

> 
> Not too long ago there were policy discussions about rationing the last of the IP resources allocated to ARIN. Many were opposed to this. The general opinion was that organizations should not be denied needed resources now, for something that may be needed later. Then some found a compromise in section4.10.
> 
> Then there are proposals that suggest parking resources for the future because we cannot be sure what the situation will be two years from now. These topics were met with opposition against denying known, current needs for unknown circumstances in the future. 
> 
> Finally, there are the discussions about rationing the last bits of IPv4 space by defining what technologies are worthy of receiving the last of the unallocated IPv4 resources.
> 
> So a couple questions come to mind. 
> 
> Of all the methods being discussed, aren’t they just rationing in one form or another? If so, they why don’t we simplify the conversation and ration the last of the IP space by size and timeframe without all the requirements on an organization that add to the overhead of ARIN staff? Wouldn’t the end result be the same?
> 
I guess that depends on your definition of same. Would the result cause final IPv4 runout to be at the same time? Possibly the parameters could be tuned in either system such that the results would come close. However, I do not believe it would result in the distribution being to the same set of organizations or in using the addresses for the same purposes.

As I see it, 4.10 isn't about making IPv4 last and giving it out to needful organizations slowly. As I see it, the purpose for 4.10 is to try and make sure we don't end up in some form of deadly embrace where further deployment of IPv6 depends on the availability of IPv4 resources which are no longer available. My intent in writing proposal 116 was to try and enumerate the technologies that require IPv4 in order to enable IPv6 deployment rather than the technologies that provide continuing IPv4-only services.

> Should ARIN be defining topologies or technologies for an organization? Many argued strongly in the past against this direction. How much will really be accomplished fine tuning the use of the last 0.4% of the IPv4 space compared to how the other 99.996% is being used?
> 
I would argue that generally, no they should not. However, if you consider my above explanation of the purpose of 4.10, I don't think that's is really what 4.10 or 116 seek to do.

> Are some forms of rationing more acceptable than others? I’m curious if there are some who are opposed to outright rationing but find putting requirements on technologies as an acceptable middle ground? What do they feel is the difference or the compromise? 
> 
I don't think rationing is a particularly effective strategy here. I think that reserving a certain amount of IPv4 space to use for the enablement of IPv6 deployment is worthwhile and should be done.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100802/0aa30313/attachment.htm>