[arin-ppml] Ending point to point links as a justification for a /30?

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 29, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> 
> 
> Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> 
> 
>> 
>> I believe it's counterproductive to spend more time coming up with more
>> workarounds for IPv4 while at the same time expecting that IPv6 adoption
>> is going to take hold.
> 
> If and only if, all the effort available and tasks required were confined to the participants of this conversation, only then would this point be valid. That was the case circa the ARPANET. It is no longer.
> 
Not entirely true.

>> Let IPv4 go.
> 
> It is up to the individual operators and network and customers and users to let it go. Not us, even for an expansive version of "us".
> 
It is up to the members of ARIN to choose how ARIN staff spends staff time and member money.

As such, I do not want to see significant ARIN resources dedicated to reclamation. I support auditing
where it is warranted as suggested in NRPM 12 and in 2010-11. So much so that I was a contributing
author of NRPM-12 and am the author of 2010-11. However, this has to do with ongoing operations
and stewardship of active address space. It is not intended as a concerted effort to reclaim under-
utilized IPv4 space.

Reclamation is a rathole that will consume vast amounts of staff time and ARIN money without
significant gain for the community at the end. If you want to fund your own personal "Give your
space back to ARIN" campaign and gather volunteers to help you and contributors to help
fund it, more power to you. If you want to divert ARIN resources to such a thing, then, I, and
the two ARIN member organizations for which I am a DMR are opposed to that.

Owen