[arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack

[Owen DeLong]

Because there isn't enough IPv4 left to do so meaningfully by the
time such a policy came to consensus.

If we had come to consensus on something of this nature a year ago,
we might have been able to do something useful. At this point, we're
past that point. Whatever policy we make will only increase the pain
for some random subset of organizations while making a very slight
reduction in it for other organizations.

Last year and the year before, the community made pretty clear
conscious decisions not to do so. We decided to ride current IPv4
policy into the end zone.

Changing course now is like trying to turn a jet inside a narrow
canyon because we can see the end and we can't out climb it.
We might be able to change where we hit the wall, but, we can't
avoid the wall.

Owen

On Dec 28, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:

> If we set aside the carrot versus stick discussion that we're having, and
> the point that ARIN should stay out operational details, I still believe
> there's value in looking at it from a resource allocation perspective.  ARIN
> makes, based on community-created policy, assessments about how much space
> is handed out and on what basis (i.e. HD factors).  Why can't the level of
> IPv6 deployment play into the policy of the IPv4 assignment process?
> 
> Frank
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Robert E. Seastrom
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 3:32 PM
> To: William Herrin
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient
> Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack
> 
> 
> William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> writes:
> 
>> That's really a fundamental question here, isn't it? Do we want ARIN
>> to lead or follow?
> 
> ARIN has been leading on IPv6 promotion for years, through outreach,
> fee abatement, and policies that make getting a v6 allocation only
> slightly more difficult than filling one's gas tank.
> 
> Motion (of which there is an abundance in PP-125) should not be
> confused with progress.
> 
> I expect to see plenty more proposals coming from various quarters
> regarding how to divvy up the last crumbs of IPv4 address space.  I
> don't want to dissuade anyone from working on them, since this is an
> important exercise and a good proposal might come out of it, but I'm
> not sanguine about the prospects.
> 
> Owen mentioned the deck chairs on the Titanic, an expression which is
> going to get used to the point of being a stock cliche in our
> community if it hasn't already.  Let me offer another: the Dopeler
> Effect - bad ideas sound better when they come at you quickly.  :-)
> 
> I continue to be opposed to PP-125.
> 
> -r
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.