[arin-ppml] ARIN Advisory Council Thoughts about IPv4 Policies

[George, Wes E IV [NTK]]

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of James Hess
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 3:06 AM
To: Sweeting, John
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Advisory Council Thoughts about IPv4 Policies

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Sweeting, John
<john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:

> Thank you for your input. The main point is that the AC believes that it is >getting too late in the game to continue changing the rules.
[snip]

It is never really too late in the game to make changes to the rules,
if the change is beneficial,  with obvious caveats, such as changes
would be useless after a certain point,  ARIN  can't  de-allocate IPs,
and there might be some unfair possibilities which should not be
chosen, even if available.
[[WEG]] I agree that if the change is significantly beneficial, nothing should stop changes from moving forward. However, I don't interpret the AC's statement as, "no more changes to IPv4 policy." I think what people considering policy proposals should take from the AC's guidance is to make sure to include solid rationale that covers why this change will be useful, and why it's necessary given the projections for IPv4 exhaustion. Assume up front that there are skeptics like me out there, and prove to me why an IPv4-only change actually results in a net benefit to the community at large that makes it worth the effort.
More importantly, think about and discuss whether it can get through the PDP in time to make any substantive difference without requiring emergency action, because emergency action should be used sparingly as it relates to the IPv4 runout.
In other words, think twice about proposals that significantly change the IPv4 allocation process/rules because "it might help fix future [TBD] issues", think twice about proposals that make changes to resolve corner case problems solely for IPv4 with no potential impact on IPv6, and stop using "if you're convinced that there's nothing we can do to prolong IPv4, what's the harm in implementing this proposal?" as a supposed substantive argument in favor of it. It's moving from giving proposals the benefit of the doubt that if there is no vehement opposition, and the proposal has some merit, it will move into the next phases of the PDP to looking for a bit more guidance and support from the community up front for IPv4-only changes. Honestly, the AC could have done this without saying anything to the community by just abandoning proposals they felt fit their criteria. I appreciate that they're being up-front and open about it, and I support this action.

Increasing uncertainty about IPv4  future availability might actually
be beneficial and encourage  planners to think about IPv6 adoption.
But actually one thing that is certain is IPv4 will run out.
[[WEG]] Most people against last minute changes are those who have a plan for IPv6, and are under no illusions that IPv4 is going to run out. However, they also know that they aren't going to be able to just snap their fingers and move to IPv6 so that they never need another IPv4 address. We need some level of deterministic behavior to make the transition as painless as possible for our customers and the services we provide. There's plenty of FUD to push those who are aware of what's happening to move to IPv6, but "move to IPv6" doesn't mean "abandon your IPv4 business model and customers."

Per the PDP, it should be up to the community and membership when that
time has been reached to stop revising certain policy, not for the AC
to dictate,  and  start abandoning arbitrarily proposals  that have
solid merit,  because they think they are too disruptive, or not
overwhelmingly massively supported.
[[WEG]] There is a petition process if someone feels that the AC is acting arbitrarily, and otherwise I don't think that the AC is doing anything more than giving some guidance that I feel is needed to insert some reality into the discussion based on the time/resources we have left and how long the PDP takes to make changes.

If  people have plans that would be disrupted,  those people that have
plans should be in the community, and present to voice their issues or
objections.
[[WEG]] we {are|do|have}. However, this goes both ways. If you support a proposal, it is incumbent upon you to ensure that you make that clear early in the process, especially if it deals solely with IPv4.

Wes George

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.