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

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Mon Aug 2 18:11:34 EDT 2010

On 8/2/2010 2:22 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote:
> 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?

In my opinion I believe that ARIN should definitely do more to
promote "recommended lists of transition technlogies"  I would shy away
from the verbage "acceptable lists of transition technologies"


> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list