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

[Alexander, Daniel]

Thank you Chris and Owen for the replies. I think you articulated the
point better than I did. If we were talking about simply stretching out
the last pieces of IPv4 space, both rationing or the technical
requirements could probably be tweaked to accomplish the same thing. The
difference is the attempt to leverage the last pieces of IPv4 to
facilitate IPv6 deployments. 

What I question is whether technology requirements are the proper knob
to try and turn. Will adding things like review panels and acceptable
lists of transition technologies actually achieve the objective of
getting IPv6 deployed, or will it just distract people to debate what
are acceptable methods in how to get there?

I am trying to understand the policy gap we are trying to fill here. How
will the current policy be abused that staff cannot manage? And will the
gains achieved in preventing this abuse really be offset by the addition
of review panels on what everyone deems "acceptable" transition
technologies. 

Just adding my $.02 to your $.02. Soon we will be rich. :)
-Dan


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 10:27 AM
To: Alexander, Daniel
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Do people see a middle ground?

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 22:06, Alexander, Daniel
<Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com> 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 don't think it would be the same. They key difference in the
proposals currently on the table and pure rationing (with no technical
requirements) is the focus on transitioning to IPv6.

> 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?

ARIN should not define topologies or technologies, no. But... If ARIN
is going to restrict a block of addresses to "transitional
technologies" than it probably makes sense to define or at least
explain through example what is meant by "transitional technology."
Defining a term is not quite the same as defining the specific
technology or topology to be used. Also - the fight against ARIN
getting involved in operational matters is a valid one but not one
that we can take to either extreme. As has also been discussed many
times before, minimum and maximum allocations and assignments define
operational practices to some extent, as does efficient utilization
requirements, needs based justification, etc. There is a balance that
must be maintained, not an absolute law to be followed. Internet
stewardship should be the guiding beacon, and sometimes that means
dipping our toes into issues that have effects on operational
practice.

To your second point; I would reverse the question: How much will we
gain by allowing the last 0.4% of the IPv4 space be used just like the
other 99.996%? Once we level set, then we can ask how much can we gain
by tweaking the use of that same space. In that context, I think it is
clear that the bigger win is in tuning the use, rather than taking our
hands off the wheel.

> 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?

The goal is not to slow the usage of the last piece of unallocated
IPv4 space (rationing), the focus is on leveraging that last piece to
accelerate the adoption of IPv6 and the (re)homogenization of the
Internet (technical restrictions).

$0.02
~Chris

> Please let me know your thoughts.
> Dan Alexander
> ARIN AC
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>

-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.coisoc.org