[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4

[Joe Maimon]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>> Based on John's numbers, a /12 a year is more than enough. I believe 8-10 years post IANA runout of guaranteed resources for new entrants for the cost of /9 is a quite reasonable and respectable behavior for a public resource stewardship entity to be engaged in.
>>
> I suppose that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that preserving a /9 for those that may exist vs. using it for those that DO exist is profligate waste of resources.

I dont think that word means what you think it means.

Balanacing the history of consumption against 0.2% of the consumed 
resource to be used in a far more responsible fashion, I fail to see any 
rationale to term the latter profligacy.

They didnt gorge themselves enough yet, is that it?

>>
>> This I dont get. What issues? We should all be equally miserable? Is this a race to the bottom?
>>
> The issue is the various non-solutions that it spurs in the areas where runout has occurred early which then create additional costs to transition.

So now your are a proponent of helping those who have no resources at 
the expense of those who do? How does increasing our consumption rate of 
a still available resource do that, unless you are proposing ARIN 
transfer its free pool to APNIC?

It will runout. There is no stopping that. Those for whom it ran out 
faster than those who it didnt have done a poor job in stewardship and 
in preparation, and I dont see why we have to express contrition and 
repentance towards them, at our own expense.

Can you stop hand waving and actually be specific? Are you referring to 
APNIC? Are you referring to US mega ISP's who are finding it slightly 
more difficult to scoop up ipv4 one /12 at a time?


>
>> The only way to get even runout is for all the RiR's to decide upon a date after which aint nobody getting nothing.
>>
> No, there are actually several other possible ways to even things out. We're not talking about perfectly even, but, several years of asymmetry is a bad thing.

How so? Your cure is worse than the alleged disease.

Let APNIC go on an aggressive reclamation and reservation policy regime 
until their runout matches ARIN's again.

Since it is their problem, then it should be their impetus to resolve it.

>> Precisely what does that solve?
>>
> See Geoff Huston's presentation from Philadelphia and/or Busan.

Geoff's presentation shows that ARIN's policies are working to preserve 
IPv4 access, APNIC's policies have failed, IPv6 transition has failed 
and shortly after stating he did not know the solution, he falls into 
the trap that increasing and hastening our collective misery will 
somehow drive IPv6 and not make everybody upset at us for our poor 
judgement.

I disagree on both counts.

Why dont we all just turn on the IPv4 evil bit on an agreed upon date then?

What Geoff fails to discuss in the presentation I saw is that for the 
End User at the edge (which he does acknowledge as the transition 
challenge), runout is not defined at IANA or RIR levels. It is defined 
by the SP. And the SP will always have IPv4 resources, to divvy up in a 
manner most efficient and value driven as per its own judgement.

So long as they arrived in time for the party while the getting was good.

Exhausting RIR stock serves only to harden and restrict the pool of the 
available service providers, to deny qualifying end users any other 
option than being at the mercy of the collective service providers with 
a monopoly on the resource, to the mercy of the market when they are the 
smallest, most vulnerable participants in it.

It certainly is not stewardship of a public resource, even as it may be 
the appropriate end state of private property.

Fail.

(He does confirm what all the non-optimist have been saying for years, 
those whom you have claimed to not number yourself a member of all that 
time. Transition has not occurred with IANA runout. It has not occurred 
with RiR runout. It will not occur with SP runout, nor has it been 
induced by CGN and the like, which was our last hope. It will only occur 
with a seamless and properly working backwards compatible transition 
technology that doesnt eat its own expense via its own success. Fix 6to4 
or Teredo or replace it, otherwise I can only see modest pickups in 
transition speed for the next decade.)

> The presence of a transfer market alongside a free pool causes issues. It is the interaction and combination of the two factors that is creating concern. Yes, transfers have their own set of new problems they bring to the table, but, that's an unfortunate necessity of the current state of things.

Stop handwaving and start with the specifics. I dont see any issues 
caused by the existence of both that are not made worse by the 
elimination of the other.

>> I choose slower ARIN resource utilization by those that got while the getting was good, enabling those who did not to still obtain them without subjecting them to the potential intractability of the address market, fueled by those who did.
>>
>> Thats good stewardship.
>>
> What you call good stewardship, I call a form of socialism.

Its called many things, most of them good. Good business sense to ensure 
a steady influx of new customers. Good stewardship of a public resource 
that has been consumed in profligate fashion in years past. Good 
survival instincts to remain relevant to the needs of your constituency 
and to publicly show responsibility and even handedness, even if belated.

Not good for those who still want gorge as they have in the past. Fetch 
me a violin, please.

Now, community networks for free or reduced fee, that sounds more like 
it. Correct me if I am wrong, but didnt we both support that?

>
>> IPv6 relevancy to the consumption of IPv4 has been vastly overstated to date.
>>
> Huh?
>
> Owen
>

Please follow along with me for a bit.

The existence of IPv6 has not made IPv4 any less relevant or in demand. 
The runout and exhaustion of IPv4 has not may IPv6 any more then 
marginally more relevant and in demand.

Contrary to those who confidently claimed it would be otherwise.

Was that not your whole thrust, specifically the inclusion and quoting 
of Geoff's research to bolster your assertion that all of us exhausting 
faster is good for the internet, by which you mean the IPv6 version of 
the internet?

It most certainly is not good for the IPv4 internet, which is the one we 
have now.

To reiterate. Slash and burn of IPv4 in the pursuit of IPv6

a) unwise

b) unsound

c) unkind

d) unhelpful

e) unsupported

f) all of the above

Best,

Joe