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

[Joe Maimon]

Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> ISPs do not consume addresses primarily for their own purposes. They use them to provide services to their customers (mostly by handing those addresses out to said customers for use on their equipment).
>
> Denying addressees to customers that want to use them today through existing providers in order to keep them available for possible customers later who might use them through providers who don't exist yet is not, IMHO, responsible.

Preventing the entire pie from being eaten by those who have already 
have plenty, even though they have bigger stomachs then the newcomers 
for whom the barest crumb is preserved, is responsible to both.

We both know that comparing the provider with millions of addresses and 
millions of customers to the provider who needs hundreds of address but 
and can have thousands of customers is ridiculous.

> We have entered a period of escalating pain. The pain will continue to 
> escalate until the transition to IPv6 is complete. The sooner we 
> complete that transition, the sooner the pain will end. The longer we 
> hold out and attempt to cobble various solutions to keep IPv4 limping 
> along, the more pain we will inflict on ourselves and on the global 
> internet. The period of pain began almost 15 years ago with a 
> relatively minor scratch (NAT). We've allowed that scratch to fester, 
> expand, and become pervasive where there are now more end-users behind 
> NAT than on the actual internet. Now, we're talking about pushing 
> these pervasive minor lacerations into deep flesh wounds in the forms 
> of CGN, NAT64, and other solutions that provide a progressively less 
> functional internet at progressively greater cost. 

The users of NAT generally do not agree with you. Its causes them far 
less pain now then it did 15 years ago. It also enables them to connect 
to the internet in ways that would not be possible were we still trying 
to do it en masse how it was done in 15 years.

Reality trumped idealistic theory.

As I have underscored previously, you are espousing an amputation 
position in your pursuit of IPv6. The largest problem with that is that 
the patient has not given consent and can never do so.

We do not define the community ARIN serves by its existing member base.


>> 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.
> APNIC has done a poor job of stewardship? Seriously? You're talking about more than 50% of the world population in the APNIC service region,

Which percentage of that population is internet served?

>   yet they have less than 25% of the IPv4 address space. How can you possibly claim that is a poor job of stewardship?

Simple. They dont have any left and we do.

>
> Stewardship means getting the addresses that are available into the most effective use possible. It does not mean preserving a free pool for unknown possible uses in the face of known scarcity for legitimate present uses.

The proposal you wrote does a poor job of getting ARIN resources into 
APNIC's hands if that is your intent.

>
>> 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?
>>
> I'm not referring to any of them specifically, but, the overall global situation with the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 and ARIN's role in that transition.

Lets call a spade a spade. I have requested repeatedly for actual issues 
that is within ARIN IPv4 stewardship scope, regional and communal. You 
have not provided anything worth discussing in that context.

Your only problem with the current situation is that ARIN can still 
allocate IPv4 to its members and is projected to do so for longer then 
it makes you happy. You want everyone to suffer in the noble belief that 
it will spur IPv6 transition and uptake, taking the user and service 
population there kicking and screaming, at which time they will spew 
effusive gratification to the wise internet overloads who forced them 
onto the journey they mistakenly believed themselves unready for.

End justified by the means etc..

Its immoral, its tyrannical, its unwise and its neither ARIN business 
nor yours to intentionally do things like this.

In fact, I suggest you recuse yourself since action taken specifically 
to advance IPv6 uptake at the expense of IPv4 can easily be seen as a 
conflict of interest, considering your day job.

The most minimal action ARIN has taken to deal with runout 
responsibility, has actually worked better then expected, but now you 
want to reverse it?


>> Why dont we all just turn on the IPv4 evil bit on an agreed upon date then?
> Had we done that 10 years ago, that might have actually been a better idea. It certainly did a better job of facilitating the transition from NCP to TCP/IP than what we have done with the IPv4->IPv6 transition.

IPv4 is not a sacrificial lamb on the road to IPv6.


>
>> 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.
> Quite frankly, the end-user transition is going to occur fairly soon whether we want it to or not.

We all want that. And if it is inevitable, stop meddling.

>   The only way SP can continue to have IPv4 resources to divvy up is by providing a progressively more and more degraded user experience to their customers, so, your claim there is utterly inaccurate.

We all know that is hardly a uniform assumption. We have discussed this 
at length. I am convinced that the providers who are the users of the 
majority of space in ARIN can free upwards of 50% of their addresses 
with a variety of tactics, with varying amounts of end user 
inconvenience and service provider effort.

50% of a lot is still plenty.

>
>> So long as they arrived in time for the party while the getting was good.
> Even if you got to the party early and got a /8, once you pass the 16,000,000 customer mark, things are likely getting pretty tight for you even if you only give one address to each customer (which is already a degraded form of service). Beyond that, all you can do unless you can get more address space is to further degrade your services.

We both know which organization we would prefer to be once our registry 
has nothing to give either of us. The one with the /8 and 16m customers 
or the one with a PA /25 and 500 customer?

> Stewardship of a public resource is a balancing act to try and get the resource(s) into the most effective use. The free pool cannot possibly be the most effective use of a resource in a time of shortage.

Giving it away faster does not increase effective use.  On the contrary, 
slower and smaller allocations encourage greater efficiencies, as we can 
now personally attest to.
>
>
> There is a backwards compatible transition technology that doesn't eat its own expense via its own success. It's called dual stack. It's the only 100% viable transition technology that does not damage the user experience. Unfortunately, it requires IPv4 availability which we cannot preserve at this point.

Dual stack as a transition strategy without NAT is and has been DoA for 
about half a dozen years every since somebody did the math.


>
>>
>> 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.
>>
> 1.	There are tremendous potentials for abuse of either by leveraging the other.

Handwaving

> 2.	So far, the market has only served to prevent the return of addresses to the
> 	free pool from bankruptcies, thus increasing the cost of IPv4 resources while
> 	not actually increasing their availability.

Yeah, it would have been returned. Not. And look at that, some megacorp 
got the space. I thought you were happy with that end goal.

We already know what your real issue is.

>> 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.
>>
> But this doesn't ensure a steady influx of new customers.

Sure it does. ARIN did pretty well in 2011, considering it had a free 
pool to attract new members. I dont expect it to do as well once it does 
not.

Putting all your hope in the transfer market remaining a beast that ARIN 
can properly constrain is wishful thinking at best. There will be lots 
of going along to get along.

> Instead, it ensures that we force existing customers to choose between not accepting new customers or degrading the services to their existing customers in order to support new ones.

Let somebody who has been in that position speak up.

I have.

I have had to risk customers because I either did not have at the time 
resources (or no viable to speedily obtain them) as per their request or 
I simply couldnt close my eyes and hand it over, like everybody much 
larger was doing without second thought.

I suspect they will make do like I had to, only with much larger 
flexibility and capital.

>
> There is little or nothing that can be done about past profligacy. However, whether a 3 month or 12 month needs basis is used in ARIN policy, I do not believe you can call the present needs-based policies profligate in either case. At least not with any degree of accuracy.

Since the utilization has slowed, obviously the past utilization rate 
was profligate in comparison.


Joe