[arin-ppml] Use of "reserved" address space.

Tony Hain alh-ietf at tndh.net
Wed Jun 30 19:26:15 EDT 2010


While I agree with the majority of your reply, there is a point that needs
to be dealt with because it is the root cause for most of the debate. 

--- There is no 'one size fits all' approach to IPv6 transition, and there
simply can't be. ---

There are no 'one size fits all' IPv4 networks, and there will not be any
'one size fits all' IPv6 networks, so why do people keep expecting us to
have a 'one size fits all' mechanism for moving from one random state to
another???  There are a set of tools that will be useful in specific
scenarios, and most networks will have to use several of them over time.

The delay in IPv6 deployment is simple economics. The IPv4 resource is still
relatively free. People will take the cheapest route for their local needs,
and given the pressures to focus on 'next quarter profits' there is no hope
that they will take the strategic view necessary to recognize the overall
cost will be lower by moving to IPv6 before they are forced by outside
events. As soon as the cost of supporting IPv4 goes up:
a) installing layers of nat
b) trying to diagnose after the fact through 3rd party nat
c) impossibility of responding to lawful intercept / identifying actual src
through 3rd party nat
d) acquiring addresses via eBay ...
e) ... the list goes on
people will get serious about IPv6. 

We are going to have the most expensive, complex, and confused deployment of
IPv6 that one could imagine, simply because it will be done at the last
minute under pressure to deal with each organization specific forcing
function. Looking for consensus in the midst of chaos is a fine activity for
those with little else to do. I view it much like most of the discussion
about reclamation and 'post run out policy', these activities are simply
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic after it is already on the bottom
of the ocean. 

Back to the regularly scheduled list noise,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of David Farmer
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:49 PM
> To: Roger Marquis
> Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Use of "reserved" address space.
> Roger Marquis wrote:
> > Thanks for the clarifications Kevin.  Most of us have read the
> details on
> > this list before.  Whether you call it a vote or a rough consensus
> the
> > real issue is whether the process is capable of enabling a smooth
> > transition to IPv6.  Experience indicates that it is not.
> I think you are pointing out the crux of the real problem there is only
> a very rough consensus about a transition to IPv6 and how it should
> proceed. (Emphasizing alternate definitions of the word "rough" than
> the
> phrase is usually intended to convey; approximate: not quite exact; as
> would be the usual, but rather; having or caused by an irregular
> surface; rocky: full of hardship or trials; grating: unpleasantly harsh
> or grating in sound)
> Furthermore, I don't believe we will be able to achieve a more
> harmonious consensus of the community by IPv4 run-out, let alone by
> run-out which will likely happen late this year or in early 2011.
> > My concern, looking ahead, is what will occur when ARIN's decision
> making
> > process fails this test and financial interests begin exploiting the
> > artificial address shortage.  It seems likely that the DOC,
> judiciaries,
> > and/or legislatures will pick-up the ball.  When that happens it is
> > likely that ARIN's structure will change as well.
> You are right to be concerned about this, a number of people in the
> community are also concerned too.  But that doesn't mean we agree with
> your prescription for the problem, or that most of us even agree on a
> prescription for the problem.
> > Whether you see this as inevitable or not, as a good thing or not, it
> > would be prudent to start planning for it now.  You can bet those
> with a
> > financial interest in the process are.
> This is a hard multidimensional problem, with many economic, technical,
>   and political factors.  If there were easy answerers, we would have
> implemented them as a community already.  I believe the important thing
> is for ARIN to stay true to its mission statement.
> "Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation,
> allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based
> policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through
> information and educational outreach."
> It is possible that the courts and/or governments may step in,
> regardless of what we do.  But, if ARIN deviates from it core
> principles
> in a time of crisis, that will give the courts and governments a real
> reason to step in.
> So, I believe we need vigorous but polite debate, with a lot of
> listening, along with a little bit of artful compromise that is usually
> necessary to develop a true consensus.
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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