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

[Seth Mattinen]

On 8/1/2010 21:06, Alexander, Daniel wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?

Under normal circumstances I'd say no (i.e. I wouldn't support a
proposal prohibiting /30 PTP links). However, the run out of IPv4 is a
unique enough event that should be given special consideration,
including assistance migrating to IPv6. I believe that reserving some
space for IPv6 transitional technologies and denoting that it's not for
"business as usual" is a worthy cause.

It's likely that the run out brick wall will only happen once, but I'm
sure some IPv4 space will be reclaimed afterward from the normal
attrition of entities closing shop or bills not being paid.

~Seth