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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 29, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> 
> 
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 2011, at 5:53 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>>   
>>> Precisely. Expect organizations who have had sufficient positive results with their NAT444 deployments to not limit it to new users only, for many reasons, some of which they cannot be faulted for.
>>> 
>>>     
>> Why? And what about all the other organizations that have had sufficient negative results?
>>   
> 
> I cant see how the solution can be usable for new customers but not for old. Either it works for both or it works for neither.
> 

I have existing customers. They like the service they have. They may leave if I degrade their service. I run out of addresses.

New customers may not sign up for my NAT444 service, but, it's all I can offer them.

I certainly don't want to encourage my existing customers to leave by subjecting them to degraded service compared to what they are used to. I have to accept that my ability to attract new customers may be limited by the amount of native IPv4 space I can obtain. There is no way around that fact.

>>> Some of these organizations will as a result have more available resources then anybody else put together.
>>> 
>>>     
>> This is relevant how?
>> 
>>   
> 
> A reality in where the vast majority of available ipv4 resources are held by a group of entities other than RiRs should have some relevancy somewhere in policy discussions, perhaps along with policies that help to further those odds.
> 

I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion of this policy. This policy doesn't affect that and there's really nothing we can do to improve this policy by considering that issue.

Owen