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

[Scott Leibrand]

On Mon 5/17/2010 8:58 AM, Chris Engel wrote:
> If the idea, as Ted implies, is to effectively astro-turf any proposals which might help extend the life of IPv4 in fear that it might retard the adoption of IPv6, then I believe that WOULD engender alot of ill will toward ARIN among the larger public of end users of IP address space.
> I'll speak frankly when I say that it would certainly engender a certain amount of ill will on my part, for whatever little that is worth.
>    

Agreed.  If anyone on the AC were proposing that, I would be vehemently 
opposed myself.

> Frankly, IPv6 has alot of negatives associated with it...and it doesn't adequately meet everyone's needs at the moment. If it did...there wouldn't be as much resistance to adoption as there currently is. Note, that is not to say that IPv6 won't be where most need to go to get their address space in future. Even if it were politically feasible to rethink that...it is too late in the game to do anything else. However that doesn't mean that you should be sticking a bayonet in anyone's back and say "You can't look for any IPv4 solution, you must adopt IPv6 whether you like it or not."
>
> ARIN's mission, unless I misunderstand it, is to provide address space resources for the public... not to act as a shill for any particular protocol over another. Given that IPv6 does have plentiful address space (it's only real positive IMO), it's no surprise that ARIN wants to focus most of it's efforts on stewardship of that space and to eliminate as many barriers to entry there as possible. Still, if there is anything to be done that can provide better utilization of resources in IPv4 space and is not overly disruptive to that community of users, ARIN should NOT shy away from considering it. The idea that improving IPv4 address resources will slow the adoption of IPv6 should NOT even enter into the decision making process in that regards (IMO).
>    

Agreed.  I think the policies we've proposed and advanced recently have 
captured most of the low-hanging fruit of that sort.  If anyone else can 
identify anything we've missed, I'll gladly help take it on.

> Note, that I didn't interpret the statement the AC made as "astro-turfing" IPv4 policies and I do believe that stability and predictability are important virtues in themselves. However some of Ted's comments were a little alarming. I hope they don't represent what the AC is actually thinking in the back of their minds?

That's certainly not my intent, and I'm not aware of anyone else on the 
AC who espouses that view.

-Scott

> Frankly the one and only goal (IMO) that ARIN should have is in making sure that everyone has sufficient address resources to achieve their individual goals. Whether that means everyone is going to be running IPv6 in the next 2 years, or we're all going to still be on IPv4 20 years hence, or there is going to be a mixed environment ad-infintem is frankly immaterial (IMO) as long as the end goal can be met.
>
>
>
> Christopher Engel
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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.
>