[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles - revised
jschiller at google.com
Thu Jul 11 13:27:48 EDT 2013
Be careful to define what you mean by hording...
One might consider acquiring enough IP addresses to
maintain current growth (or even greater than current growth
due to some hypothetical, yet to be released wiz-bang product),
for the period of time until wide spread IPv6 adoption an
insurance policy, and good business.
Being conservative in risk, one might guess wide spread
IPv6 adoption will safely happen in less than 25 years.
(it is better to be over by 5 years than under by 5 years)
Based on the current justified need of two years projected
growth based on data from growth in the last year, this
could be considered hording in two dimensions:
1. a use time horizon of greater than two years
2. a projection that is not based on past growth.
The problem is corporations have deferred deploying
IPv6 until their IPv4 reserves have been depleted, as
there is real cost and risk and no new revenue. If
corporations can cheaply purchase IPv4 then they can
continue to defer.
This means the date by which an organization needs to
deploy IPv6 is the day before they run out of (or can no
longer cheaply purchase) IPv4.
Dual stack transition was supposed to work because
everyone would deploy IPv6 before the first organization
runs out of IPv4. But we moved the finish line from
when the first organizations run out to when each
individual organization runs out.
Each organization will run out at different times.
For organizations whose need for addressing continues
to grow, not having IPv4 for available growth puts you
at competitive disadvantage to your competition who
still has addresses.
So organizations that continue to grow need at least
enough addresses to cover their growth until wide
spread IPv6 adoption, or a longer growth horizon
then all their competitors that are growing and
competing for the same customer base.
WRT to speculation... one might argue that the
APNIC region is already out of IPv4, and there
is unmet need. If there is underutilized IPv4
addresses, and an ARIN - APNIC inter-RIR
transfer policy, why haven't we already seen
lots of transfers?
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:26 PM, cb.list6 <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2013 8:55 AM, "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com>
> > > I see conservation not as a principle, I mean really the guiding
> > > should have been distribution of addresses, not conservation of them.
> > > The goal was to grow the Internet through the dissemination of
> > > Conservation was not the principle, it was the means to prevent the
> > > of the free pool by bad actors.
> > Not true. As I have pointed out in several fora several times before,
> > conservation of the number space is NOT the same as conservation of a
> > free pool of addresses. The principle here is conservation of the
> > number space - the whole thing, not one arbitrary slice of it.
> > The definition of conservation from the science dictionary may be
> > helpful in illustrating what is meant by conservation of Internet
> > numbers: Conservation is generally held to include the management of
> > human use of natural resources for current public benefit and
> > sustainable social and economic utilization. In this case the resource
> > is the unique Internet number spaces (not just free pools).
> > > These recent incarnations of this proposal continue to try to shoehorn
> > > conservation as a principle, even to the point of including
> > > inside registration.
> > > I don’t think it is either a principal or a goal, for that matter,
> just a
> > > protective mechanism for free pool addresses.
> > > With the exhaustion of the free pool, conservation has no place in the
> > > Until that time, we don’t need to clutter the NRPM with some hoary
> > > from another era.
> > If I can be so trite as to quote myself:
> > "Understanding that the useful life of IPv4 is far from over (raise
> > your hand if you have used IPv4 for a critical communication in the
> > past 24 hours) makes it quite easy to see that we still have a need to
> > "maximise the lifetime of the public IPv4 address space."
> > In fact, the IANA and RIR free pools have essentially been a buffer
> > protecting us from those who would seek to abuse the public IPv4
> > address space. As long as there was a reserve of IPv4 addresses,
> > perturbations caused by bad actors could be absorbed to a large extent
> > by doling out "new" addresses into the system under the care of more
> > responsible folks. Now that almost all of the public IPv4 address
> > space has moved from RIR pools into the "wild," there is arguably a
> > much greater need to practice conservation. The loss of the RIR free
> > pool buffer does not mark the end of "the lifetime of the public IPv4
> > address space" as Tore suggests but rather marks our entry into a new
> > phase of that lifetime where stockpiling and hoarding have become even
> > more dangerous."
> > > I am still against the proposal.
> > As is your right.
> Who would benefit from hoarding?
> Hoarding seems like economic "dumping", there are rules and policies
> around it, but it has never really occured because the economics are wrong.
> The market ensures dumping does not occur.
> Or like the FUD about walmart driving local business out and then jacking
> up prices after competition is gone, its just fud. People made a big noise
> about it 20 years ago, not any more.
> I think the market is only interestes in transactions. Ipv4 addresses are
> like most cars, they depreciate rapidly so hoarding is not a real thing.
> And, with google fiber at 77% ipv6 and vzw over 25%, i must say i would no
> hoard ipv4.
> But, my ask is, lets not assume hoarding or threats to ipv4 by bad actors
> unless there is a real case that applies.
> Afaik, arin brought transfers in to increase efficiency
> > Cheers,
> > ~Chris
> >  - http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130523_removing_need_at_ripe/
> > > Regards,
> > > Mike Burns
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > http://chrisgrundemann.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML