[arin-ppml] Changes needed to ARIN Number Resource Policy?

[Michel Py]

> John Curran wrote :
> I would ask that folks now submit any policy proposals that they feel appropriate so that we may continue discussion
> on the list in a more focused manner on specific proposals as that is the primary purpose of this mailing list.

I propose that you try to keep ARIN in one piece, instead of favoring IPv6 to the point that the IPv4 base is going to force a split because it has become tired of being the bastard child for 20 years.


> Joe Maimon wrote :
> Any policy that reserved space for new entrants. Any policy that prioritizes the tiny over the giants.
> Any policy that pressured the IETF to stop the ridiculous self fulfilling dance on 240/4. Any policy
> that preserves IPv4 usefulness and RiR relevance in the face of increasing uncertainty of how long
> address scarcity will be with us. And if absolutely necessary, to get down in the weeds of specifying
> the types of usages that may or may not be considered justification of need.

Support. Some may present difficulties reaching consensus.


> I believe the original point was referencing the fact that ISDN was intended to replace POTS, nationally.

Indeed. The future of telephony. In a few years, everyone will have an ISDN phone, blah blah blah.
It solved a bunch of issues that nobody had, was to rid us of the evil analog line. Anyone sees a similarity here ?
Now, the technology was superior, no doubt. I had large modem bank at the time, ISDN DS-3 direct to the Access Servers.
The signaling was far more robust than any of the in-line hacks used with regular voice DS-3s or T1s, well worth the loss of the 24th channel.
Nevertheless, it was a an total failure in the market. Almost everyone who invested money in ISDN lost. I threw away millions of dollars of ISDN gear.
So I applause the operators who resisted that stupid government mandate over ISDN.

> Instead it found a solid niche role among providers and enterprises for a time, currently eroding.

A niche it is, and for only one reason : it eliminates SIP firewall traversal. All the PRI I have seen lately is SIP all the way to the CPE.
It is simpler both for the operator and for the PBX vendor to configure PRI than trying to solve all the issues with SIP.

And today, in 2021, we still have people like Owen to argue that ISDN is not a failure. ISDN _is_ a colossal failure.
Possibly, some operators out there remember how they lost their shirt and barely kept their underwear because of it.

> We all know very well who and their associated acronyms did what and when wrt to 240/4 and yes, it amounted to showstoppers.

Yes we do. We know who promoted it and we know who killed it, too.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wilson-class-e-01
Looks like other RIRs have a more realistic view of this. There were efforts prior to that, there were efforts later.
Hmm. P. Wilson; G. Michaelson; G. Huston. I wonder what these guys do for a living.

Michel.