[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2012-4: Return to 12 Month Supply and Reset Trigger to /8 in Free Pool
jmaimon at chl.com
Thu Mar 15 19:34:09 EDT 2012
Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:35 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>> How about someone be specific, and point out what kind of specific issues that the ARIN region may experience due to its expanded ipv4 availability, thanks in no small part to a decreased burn rate and greater efficiency, brought to you by three month soft landing?
> I will start by specifically pointing out the flaws in the above assumptions...
> First, the assumption that the three month soft landing has caused greater efficiency and that the decreased burn rate has resulted from that greater efficiency and not from other factors.
If not that, then from what? Because we all can see that the burn rate
> In reality, that decreased burn rate represents not greater efficiency, but, greater pain inflicted upon organizations struggling to get by with what they have because the effort involved in obtaining 3 months worth of address space and the costs associated with doing so exceeds the revenue those addresses are likely to produce. It represents real customers suffering under degraded services and increased pricing as a result. That's not greater efficiency, it's just greater pain.
You keep describing greater efficiency. And if the greater efficiency
comes at the cost of extra inconvenience and effort, obtaining
efficiency usually entails some effort.
It wont get better by getting rid of ipv4 availability faster.
>> Misery loves company?
>> If all you have to whine about is that people deserve to suffer for not racing to adopt IPv6 and by golly we are going to make sure they do, I am really tired of hearing that.
> This is a very interesting way to characterize my argument.
I just called your spade a spade. Hardly interesting.
> What I'm arguing against is the fact that people are actually suffering now.
And how does your proposal help?
> Even people who have adopted IPv6. Not because they failed to adopt IPv6, but, in part because others have failed to do so, but in larger part because our current flawed policy is inflicting additional unnecessary pain in the name of making the free pool last mythically longer.
Back to the spade. IPv4 is lasting too long.
> Quite the contrary... However, when the RIR pools are depleted, the cost of failing to deploy IPv6 will start to be expressed in terms that seem to be better understood by managers, whereas today they are expressed in technical esoterica that does not seem to get through as well.
These same managers would quite prefer a dollar tag, because the
technical esoterica is actually much scarier to them.
Most of them would rather ask one question and be told one answer when
trying to obtain addresses.
How much will it cost?
> Further, the post RIR depletion fragmentation of the address pool and subsequent consequences to the routing table will serve as a further driver. I have very much thought this through to its logical conclusion.
So why are you trying to hurry up RIR depletion? Are you looking forward
to these consequences?
Because they are not happening now.
> Have you thought through to the logical conclusion of the damage today's policy is causing today in the real world?
Why cant you simply state what the damage is?
> Have you thought through the silo effect
> and the damage that is already causing?
> Have you thought through the extent of the damage to the concept of ubiquitous network communications world wide that will evolve from north america being so completely disjoint from the rest of the world?
You have got to be kidding me.
Are you talking about the NAT boogeyman again? And somehow depleting
ARIN free pool makes that better?
> I think that depends on the price at which they seek to monetize.
Which in many markets, is $15 for 5.
> If the price is too high, it will spur IPv6 adoption pretty well.
Your gambling without even understanding your odds.
>> Do you really think the suits at these organizations would be so eager to work against their own immediate interests?
> This conclusion is opaque to me. I absolutely expect them to work in their own interests. However, I see their interests falling into one of three behaviors:
> 1. Hoard what they have and try to be the rare provider of IPv4 that still has addresses to give in order to gain
> competitive advantage.
They wont be rare, they will be a member of the Xlarge club, and they
will have a competitive advantage.
> 2. Attempt to monetize IPv4 addresses at such a high asking price as to strongly motivate potential customers
> to use IPv6 as an alternative wherever possible.
Since that would not be in their best interest, one can assume they will
make every effort not to do so intentionally.
> 3. Attempt to monetize IPv4 addresses at low enough prices that a one-time redistribution of addresses replaces
> the RIR system as the new free pool until the readily available monetizable addresses are redistributed and
> we are faced with runout once again.
Attempt to monetize IPv4 addresses at market bearing prices so that continuing efficiency of addressing adequately replaces
the RIR system as the new NON-free pool for as long as they can benefit from the extra costs that they can impose.
> If they behave in some combination of those three ways, then, the end result is still the same...
> 1. IPv4 runs out.
No it doesnt. There is the same amount of finite IPv4 as there always
was. And the holders of the vast majority of it will be sitting pretty.
> 2. People faced with the rising cost of IPv4 and supply problems obtaining IPv4 addresses will turn to IPv6.
You hope. Where is the evidence of that occurring, say, in the regions
that have already run out?
> 3. IPv4 deaggregation will make IPv4 routing more and more expensive to maintain.
This is very possibly inevitable and this draft policy has nothing
relevant to bear on this issue.
> I don't know that I would say "eagerly", but, I do anticipate that these pain factors (which, by the way cannot really be mitigated, only moved around from place to place a little bit) which can only continue to increase will increase until such time as we generally deploy IPv6.
This is the crux of your rational, out in the open.
Kill off IPv4 to drive IPv6 adoption.
Except it is immoral, improper, and inaccurate.
>> How are things working out in the depleted regions? Or is that ARIN's responsibility as well?
> The depleted region is still in the transfers are available stage, but, even so, there is a significant increase in IPv6 deployment efforts in that region. There is also a significant increase in IPv6 deployment efforts in the RIPE region which, while it hasn't run out yet is close enough that it is pretty clear they will be the second region to run out.
That is great. So how is ARIN free pool availability negatively
affecting them? And we both know that they are nowhere close to where
they need to be and I dont believe we want to be in their position any
sooner that we have to.
> I think it is completely irresponsible maintain a padlock on the granary in front of all the hungry villagers and post armed guards to watch them starve slowly gambling on the likelihood that more villagers arrive next month.
> You seem to think it is irresponsible to feed the people who are hungry today gambling on the possibility that the number of people starving next month will be about the same.
> I prefer to feed the people in front of me at the risk that more people MIGHT be hungry tomorrow vs. keep people hungry today based on such an uncertainty.
Your analogy is flawed, even more so than most.
1) IPv4 is not consumable. It is recyclable.
2) When the doors were wide open, even when we well understood the
coming scarcity, the hoarders grabbed their fill, repeatedly.
3) Nobody is padlocking anything. Gluttony is simply being discouraged.
4) We absolutely know that under the previous burn rate people will not
be able to get IPv4 from ARIN when they need it, prior to IPv6 being a
real option for them. Under the current burn rate, there is a much
better chance, a reason to hope again that this time we will make it in
Where it really falls down.
The rational course to coming scarcity is not to consume as much as
possible prior to its arrival, it is to preserve and restrict your
consumption to the most efficient level possible that extends your
longevity, even at a cost of a hungrier belly.
When a community of individuals enters the dynamic, things change. The
communities rational course is still efficiency. However, It is
different for the individual, where the rational course is to consume as
much as possible from the communal resources, and to preserve them in
reusable and recyclable form for when there are no more to be had. And
if such behavior generates a marketable surplus, so much the better.
The community is best served by limiting the individual tendency for
this kind of behavior.
I got a better analogy, a car one! (The consumption aspect is still
problematic, but gasoline as a resource is more renewable [at least for
The needle has just started hovering above the E, past the 1/8th mark
but still on the gauge line. The low fuel warning has not come on yet,
but you dont recall if it comes on at 1 gallon or 2. You are on the
highway in a mountaneous region. Its late at night and you last passed
an open station hours ago. Some exits have signs posted for Service
stations, but the last few you tried were all closed, a false hope. You
know that in about 100 miles there is an open 24hrs station, right on
the interstate, in the next state, where the prices are significantly
cheaper. Your car is rated at 35mpg highway, but your driving experience
is more usually at 22-25.
I suspect most of us have been in situations very much like this one.
A) press the pedal to the metal hoping to get as far as you possibly
can, so that your nerves have to deal with this painful suspense for the
shortest time possible. I cant drive 55.
B) Drive as judiciously and as efficiently to get as far as you possibly
can, using the terrain and keeping within your rpm/torque efficiency
sweet spot, hoping you have closer to 3gals in the tank and that you
will make at least 33mpg.
[B1) Unload the wife and kids and all the luggage and hope you can come
back for them with your increased fuel range]
C) Drive as you normally do and hope for the best. Maybe you will make
it, maybe you wont, maybe the next exit's service station will be open,
maybe a passerby will see you stranded and give you a lift, maybe you
D) Detour through the empty streets looking for somebody awake who can
point you to an open station and hope you dont get lost and stranded.
More information about the ARIN-PPML