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

[Joe Maimon]

Sweeting, John wrote:
> To All Members of the Community,
>
> The AC strongly believes that the whole of the ARIN community requires and deserves a stable policy environment in order to better prepare and plan for IPv4 run out and deployment of IPv6.
>
> With that in mind, the AC would like to advise the community that unless a proposal affecting IPv4 assignments has a compelling benefit for and receives strong initial support from the community the AC will most likely choose to abandon the proposal. The AC recognizes its commitment to the community and after introspection and discussion has concluded that this is the best course of action. Please provide comments either through PPML or directly to individual AC members.
>
> On Behalf of the ARIN Advisory Council,
>
> John Sweeting, Chair

John, AC

I have chosen to respond to this message, which is far more measured 
than some of the followups, which frankly speaking, have tones of 
defeatism and fatalism to them and are quite discouraging.

Taking a knee on the end game is the wrong call.

To the extent that this statement represents a shift in how the AC plans 
to handle IPv4 proposals, I believe it is the wrong direction and may 
improperly reflect the AC's apparent bias related to the IPv4 end game.

To the extent that this statement represents a belief that mass IPv6 
adoption will be negatively affected by any attempts to modify the end 
game, I put forth that it is cognitive dissonance to trumpet a solution 
whose adoption prospects are so frail that they hinge on sudden mass pain.

Firming policy so that organizations can make plans is ludicrous. The 
only plan that needs to be made is adoption and migration of IPv6. 
Organizations are either planning to do so or not. A few months more or 
less of IPv4 availability should not be changing anything in places 
where plans translate into large budgets.

Organizations whose plans include banking on no further policy changes 
to allow them to delay their IPv6 plans have not made sound plans and 
should not be of special concern.

Those whose plans do not include adoption of IPv6 well in time of demand 
seem to be taking the position that our stated predictions are not quite 
accurate.

Preventing policy changes to address a potential partial or complete 
failure of IPv6 to solve the needs of the community in a timely manner 
due to fears of negatively affecting IPv6 chances of doing so results in 
a deadlock. That cant be right.

I submit that far more important to IPv6 adoption would be a stable IPv6 
policy environment.

To make my views of IPv6 clear, I think it just needs more time. Time 
for more standards and policies supporting peoples desired utilization 
modes. Time for more network to properly support it. Time for more 
equipment, enterprise and residential, to properly support it. Time for 
take-up to accelerate. Managing the end-game may provide that time.

There are decent odds that IPv4 will remain strongly relevant post IANA 
and ARIN free pool depletion, regardless of policy action or inaction. 
Sticking our heads in the sand isnt going to make things better.

While it is certain that the current rate and mode of utilization cannot 
be sustained much longer, I strongly believe there is much that can be 
done and may need to be done post free pool depletion. Let not 
hindsight's 20/20, never a favorable picture, cast us as irresponsible 
drunken sailors.

Owen (a most devout and ardent IPv6 proponent), Steve and myself have 
put forth proposals that in my view have the potential for a significant 
impact during the end-game.

I cant help but feel that we may be getting the short end of the stick 
from the sound of it.

Assuming this AC position is unanimous, I suggest Owen consider 
withdrawing his proposal to allay concerns over preferential treatment 
and mixed messaging. Allow a non-AC member, such as myself, to resubmit it.

Let it be the entire community who collectively decides to maintain the 
cruise control straight into the brick wall, not solely the AC. Keep the 
playing field level and dont discourage proposals, their submitters and 
participants.

Allow the PDP to prove itself.

If this is simply the case that the AC is concerned over a potential 
burgeoning case load, it hasnt happened yet, inasmuch as it is to be 
expected.

With at least two PDP cycles in front of depletion, and with unknown 
time after that where IPv4 needs continue to be relative, this message 
is premature.

My apologies to the readers for this overlong response.

Joe