[arin-ppml] Set aside round deux

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:

>> Additionally, much of the space to be audited is legacy space where
>> it is not entirely clear ARIN can do much about the situation after the
>> audit anyway.
> 
> Can't deny there is not much ARIN can do currently, particularly not
> given its inability make IPv6 more feasible or correct past excessively
> large IPv4 allocations.   This is likely to change, however, when there
> are no more IPv4 addresses to allocate and current netblock owners begin
> milking their holdings for profit.  When that occurs the legal landscape
> is likely to change as it did when ICANN proposed deregulating tld
> domain names.  In that case the DOD stepped in.  In this case I would
> also expect the FCC to step in.
> 
Not sure why you think IPv6 is either infeasible or incorrect, given the
large deployments actually operating with it. Is there room for improvement?
Sure. However, that can be said of just about anything. IPv6 is certainly not
particularly worse than IPv4 and has several advantages, including the
improvements in security and reliability that come from eliminating NAT.

When there are no more IPv4 addresses, I would expect the FCC will tell
you the same thing ARIN has been saying for some time... Use IPv6.

>> An auditor as you are describing shouldn't actually bring any opinions
>> on IPv6 transition or any of the other factors to the table at all. To the
>> extent possible, the auditor should be strictly looking at whether the
>> address utilization is sufficiently efficient according to ARIN policy to
>> justify the address space held and making a report of that fact or of
>> the extent to which the organization in question is out of compliance
>> with ARIN policy.
> 
> Agreed, and it is that policy i.e., recognizing utilization, which must
> change.  In particular it must begin addressing large legacy allocations,
> mergers and aquisitions, and abandoned netblocks.
> 
Those issues are all addressed.... In IPv6. Efforts to address them in
IPv4 will not yield more than a few months supply of IPv4 addresses
at current consumption rates and would likely take years to accomplish.
It simply isn't a good use of ARIN resources to chase these last vestiges
of potentially available IPv4.

>> The next step would be for staff to institute voluntary or forced reclamation
>> procedures as required under section 12 after the audit, if the organization
>> is significantly out of compliance.
> 
> I'd be surprised if there will not be sufficient political capital for
> forced reclamation.  The political fallout necessary for that will follow
> address exhaustion and it will be shaped first by the press and then by
> the government.  We have not yet seen a "60 Minutes" show muckraking the
> large IPv4 squatters but, heads-up corporate marketing departments, you
> will likely need to move to damage control mode when the press picks up
> this story.  Nothing new here, just study the history of Enron,
> CountryWide, BP and other one-time beneficiaries of excessive
> deregulation and under-regulation for details.
> 
Maybe, or, maybe like most of the press so far, they'll simply state that
it's time to move to IPv6.

Pitchforks and torches parading against corporate America chanting
"Give back your integers" just doesn't strike me as a likely scenario here.

>> There really is not much that ARIN can do to change the way that IPv4
>> exhaustion impacts us. It is too late. About the only thing that would
>> help us through the IPv6 transition would be a massive educational
>> program by ARIN, starting with sessions for New York stock market analysts
>> who ask CEOs the tough questions when they present their quarterly
>> results.
> 
> "There really is not much that ARIN can do" does seem to be the case,
> today, except perhaps for planning a less disruptive transition to IPv6,
> emphasis on the "disruptive".
> 
ARIN issues addresses according to policies set by the community.
ARIN can and does reclaim addresses issued by ARIN in accordance with
policies set by the community. I'm not sure what you think ARIN can
do to make the transition to IPv6 less disruptive. Do you need addresses
you feel you can't get? I simply don't understand what aspect of
address assignment you are finding so disruptive in this transition.

Owen