[arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension]

[George, Wes E [NTK]]

I actually don't disagree with the facts that you raised, and I appreciate you trying to bring this
to some closure.

Allow me to summarize the grey areas that have triggered most of the debate and make it much less
simple than you're making it.

We have differing opinions as to the risk of triggering #5, as well as how much of an operational
issue it might be for your average ISP, and little more than anecdotal evidence to go on to support
either viewpoint.

We also have differing opinions regarding the suitability of alternatives to prevent #5:
a) an ISP repurposes some of their own space to use as inside NAT pool, with the understanding that
implementing CGN will actually free up addresses that are in use today by those users moved to the
CGN.
b) squatting on unrouted but allocated space
c) using whatever RFC1918 space meets the 80/20 rule for avoiding CPE gear defaults to ensure that
the risk of encountering #5 is lowered, and when it happens, is more manageable to fix.

If you are in the camp that believes that the above would solve most of the problems you listed,
then you're wondering what problem this proposal is trying to solve. If you believe that none of the
above are workable, or aren't workable enough for the majority of applications, then you likely
believe that this proposal is the only correct answer.

Finally, in addition to your questions, I'd add, "What happens if this proposal doesn't pass?" or
perhaps "*Should* this problem be solved with policy?" Here again, we have nothing but educated
guesses to go on, and I'm not sure "the Mega-ISPs will come in and make lots of requests for space
for their CGN and we have to avoid that" is a good enough justification on its own, and I'm not in
favor of policy for policy's sake.

I'm not against this policy because I'd rather have part of the /10 for my company. I'm against it
because I'm afraid of stranding limited resources to solve a problem in the face of imperfect, but
still viable alternatives that do not require new addresses, especially when the threat of
exhaustion in this manner remains largely unsubstantiated by any of the parties who have a vested
interest in using this shared space.

Wes George

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris Grundemann
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 10:58 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [Fwd: Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address
Extension]

I think we may be over-complicating a fairly straight forward issue here.

There are few facts facing us:
1) IPv4 addresses are quickly approaching maximum utilization.
2) There are basically two ways to continue to grow the Internet beyond this threshold:
    A) Implement IPv6
    B) Further oversubscribe IPv4 addresses (LSN)
3) Although 2-A could preclude the necessity of 2-B, it is likely that
IPv6 deployment will take too long to avoid the need for LSN of some flavor in many/most growing
networks.
4) LSN breaks stuff (with varying definitions of both breaks and stuff)
5) Overlapping the LSN and CPE NAPT ranges increases this brokeness

We end up with two questions to ask:
1) Is there a problem that can be solved through policy?
2) Is the cost of the policy change greater or less than the benefit of the change?

My opinion is that this proposal appropriately addresses the issue defined in fact 5 above.

So, what is the cost? We lose one /10 that could have been assigned or allocated as unique space for
a handful of orgs (or potentially one large one). But we gain a shared space that can be used by all
ISPs with need for it, the world over. The proposal appears to provide the greatest good.

Another argument against this policy (and a large part of why it failed in other forums) is that
having this shared space available will encourage folks to deploy LSN, or to use LSN for a longer
period of time. This is a lot like saying that putting blankets in cars will encourage folks to
sleep in their cars. The fact is that while that may make sleeping in your car a bit more
comfortable, sleeping in the house is still going to be the preferred option. Only folks who must
sleep in their cars (deploy LSN), will. Everyone who can avoid it, will - regardless of some
blankets.

The only argument against that I see remaining sounds a lot like "well, I might be the guy who gets
part of that /10 for myself..."

If there are other arguments that I have missed, or if I am miscalculating the cost of this
proposal, I would love to be enlightened.

Cheers,
~Chris


> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>


--
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.theIPv6experts.net
www.coisoc.org
_______________________________________________
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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6781 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110225/cfea187c/attachment.p7s>