[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool for FuturePolicy Development

[George Bonser]

> You are pitting a pair of choices against each other as if they are
the
> only two options, when the reality is there will be a continium of
> solutions in the middle.

I also believe to be true.

> ISP's will come back for more IPv4 space and get told no.  I would
hope
> a savvy ISP could set aside a /28 of their previous allocation to use
> for transition technologies at that point. 

The savvy should *already* have some space set aside for that.  They
know it is coming.  Having this space set aside at the RIR level simply
enables them not setting aside of this space now at the LIR level.  

The savvy operators should already be handing new customers at least a
/48 of v6 space for customers in PA space and a smaller chunk of v4 for
use by 6to4 and such transition technologies, or maybe providing 6 to 4
themselves if they are big enough.  The links to the customers should be
v6 where possible and with v4 tunneled over v6.

The fact that many operators that consider themselves to be major
operations are still not native v6 is going to make all of this moot, I
am afraid.  They are going to hit the wall when runout happens and then
it is going to be a mad scramble with a lot of operators all having
networks in various states of misconfiguration at the same time.

For customers with v4 PI space, they should be assisting those customers
in getting their v6 assignments NOW.

> I pick on that size only
> because it's a popular suggestion of how much space we should give the
> ISP from the /10.  The more we can encourage folks to make these sorts
> of wise decisions, the longer the /10 will prove useful.

Necessity is the mother of invention according to the old saw.  Many
operations work on a "it isn't a problem until it is a problem" basis.
They aren't going to change a thing until they have to.  Many (most?)
already have the resources to start in that direction now and not wait
for runout.  Building in more cushion simply delays things a bit.
Having the spectre of "no space available" hanging before them might be
enough to spur them to set aside some of their own space NOW and begin
moving.

> Even if the situation you describe comes to be, where folks are
> monumentally stupid and give out every last IP of their allocations
> keeping nothing to run a transition box your dire consequences still
> come true.  Giving a provider who receives a /28 or two from the last
> /10 will not change their competitiveness against another provider who
> still has half a /8 available.

I predict many are going to give out every last bit of their space
judging from the lack of progress so far.

> The last /10 isn't about making a business with no IPv4 able to
compete
> against someone who still has half a /8 left.  That is frankly,
> laughable.  What it can be about though is help for those who planned
> well and ran into unexpected consequences.

Or new operations just getting started who get a large v6 block and need
a small v4 block in order to talk to the rest of the internet.  Where
this *really* puts the damper on things is for a new operator just
getting started and I believe there are a lot of operators out there who
are going to want to hold onto v4 as long as possible after runout so it
serves as a barrier of entry to competition.  Imaging trying to start up
a new operation after v4 runout.

> We need to get out of the mindset that if someone has totally ignored
> IPv6 transition we have something good waiting for them in the wings.
> We don't.

Absolutely agree.