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

[Joe Maimon]

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.

I considered 4.10 a successful trojan horse, a reservation proposal 
dressed up in IPv6 finery, that I have and continue to support.

I also really like the anti-mop-up effect of Draft Policy 2010-1, 
whether that also came in under the radar is less clear.

Many important steps towards what I would consider a middle ground 
approach to the end game have already succeeded. Considering how many 
more have failed

>
> 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.


As author of that proposal I thank you for the opportunity to restate 
that I believe that argument to be penny wise pound foolish, or just 
plain foolish.


>
> 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?


Yes.

Rationing and scarcity are so conjoined as to be nearly 
indistinguishable. Two sides to the same coin, synonyms in a sense.

The choice is not between some rationing or none. In fact, in this 
sense, rationing is and has for quite some time already been in effect. 
ABC's are no longer available to all simply for the asking, are they?

The choices and potential outcomes have to do with who or what will be 
participating in the sharply increasing rationing effect that is 
inevitable post free pool and subsequent RiR runout.

Free or less free market forces?

Incumbents forming a cartel, de-facto or otherwise?

Some government body or similar authority?

ARIN?

Rationing of IPv4 will cease to be the reality only when scarcity is 
removed. That is certainly not going to be the case before issue free 
IPv6 only service is in vogue for most users of the network.

Do you want to lay odds on when that will be? I do not believe a 
coherent time frame for that eventuality exists at this time.

I prefer ARIN attempt to remain in the game and not cede the field 
completely to all other potential actors.


> 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?
>
> Should ARIN be defining topologies or technologies for an organization?
> Many argued strongly in the past against this direction.

Put me down in the against column even though characterizing this debate 
as a binary choice is inaccurate. While I wont say that ARIN must never 
do so, I would greatly prefer that the case to do so, if ever, be quite 
compelling in its benefit versus risk calculations.

Such risks include the fact that the more frequently policy dabbles in 
technicalities the more it is likely to continue to do so. I cite 4.10 
and recent proposals as evidence to that effect.

> 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?


Nothing will be accomplished if that last percentage is used by the same 
entities for the same purposes and at the same rate.

If the portion of that bit potentially available to those who wish to 
continue consumption at present conditions scales comparably to their 
existing holdings, it makes even less sense.


>
> 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?
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
> Dan Alexander
> ARIN AC
>
>

The volume of end game proposals, draft policies, adopted and abandoned 
that litter the past few years suggests that consensus on an overarching 
middle ground is either being built slowly and meticulously or is flat 
out impossible, depending on your interpretation.

Strictly speaking, wherever we end up, there we are, at a middle ground, 
by definition.

On the assumption your query's target audience includes even those who 
have broadcast their opinions repeatedly at deafening volume, I favor 
PP110 and PP112 as the best effort to date at a middle ground, albeit 
one of the least successful ones.

I acknowledge my full bias as the author of those abandoned policy 
proposal. Without a complete petition worth of support in hand, they are 
dead and gone.

The action continues to move on. Hopefully Martin can produce something 
compelling that will muster more support than I managed.

For whatever it is worth, I will voice my support for any proposal that 
expands the size of 4.10 or has any reasonable bottleneck effect on it, 
causing as a side effect preservation of resources available for 
potentially more useful or important purposes at some later date.

I do not consider technical restrictions or requirements on transition 
to be overly meaningful, as after all is said and done, I estimate such 
requirements will likely have minimal to no effect on whether and to 
what extent transition does occur. I also believe the converse to be 
true, that a lack of requirements and technical restrictions would 
result in little to none retardation of transition efforts and trends.

If 4.10 remains mostly unused, with or without added restrictions, and 
the need for IPv4 for non-transitional (as defined by 4.10) purposes 
does not abate, do you not expect pressure to mount for reversing those 
restrictions and re-purposing 4.10 or to create something similar 
without those restrictions, assuming resources for it can be found 
somewhere, somehow?

Is anyone else expecting another clarifying statement from the AC 
regarding IPv4 proposals?


Joe