[arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

[Fernando Frediani]

Hi

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, 14:09 Owen DeLong, <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
> <clip>
>
> As the old saying goes… a bird in the hand.
>
> Existing users have a track record and a current documented need if they
> are applying for additional addresses. New entrants may or may not exist at
> some point in the future and are 100% speculation at this time.
>
> I see no reason to advantage speculative purposes over documented need.
> Who is being vague now?
>

This is LACNIC waiting list which has always assigned *only to new
entrants*. It is currently easily on 5 years wait time. Is this still to
vague ?

https://www.lacnic.net/6335/2/lacnic/ipv4-address-waitlist

>
> There are countless ways to always better use of what one already has and
> it sounds very unreasonable to continue assigning more addresses to these
> organizations in times of exahustion. Need to balance things correctly,
> face reality and be reasonable given the current scenario.
>
>
> This is purely your opinion. In my opinion, you shouldn’t get to make that
> decision on behalf of existing organizations and tell them how to run their
> networks.
>

Oh again this.
Yes people can chose whatever they want to run their networks, but one that
keeps refusing to implement CGNAT in their operation and wishes the luxury
to keep assigning a Public IPv4 to each individual customer, we as
policymakers are able to limit their choices by letting them to go to the
transfer market in order to fullfil their choice and not mess with a bet in
the waiting list.

>
> <clip>
>>
>
> Well, that's another discussion. Newcomers don't have any and cannot do
> anything without a minimal IPv4 even if they prefectly deploy IPv6.
>
>
> Not true. They can do many things without v4. What they can’t do is
> communicate with sites that have been too lazy or inattentive to deploy
> IPv6. Guess what… the only thing that’s going to get many of those sites to
> deploy IPv6 is when they are faced with a world where they need to
> communicate with those new entrants that have no IPv4.
>

You can't serious about it !
If you are not joking than that is precisely ideology about forcing a
situation over businesses and ignoring the practical side of things.



> Will that be painful and disruptive in the short run? You bet. Horribly
> so. But we’ve frittered away more than 20 years encouraging graceful
> transition with only about 50% uptake to show for it.
>
No, it is completelly unpractical.
Anyone in the Internet business industry still require a minimal amount of
IPv4 in order to do a minimal CGNAT/NAT64 and exist in the practical
Internet everybody uses.

>
> <clip>
>
Policy is all about balancing ideology and pragmatism. However, as I see
> it, it’s a 100% pragmatic reality that the longer we prolong the ability to
> remain addicted to IPv4, the more we enable these organizations that have
> failed to deploy IPv6 to externalize the costs of their failure onto the
> rest of us.
>

I agree to have mechanisms that limit options to tjhse who have been
refusing to implement IPv6, but in all cases where there is the most
perfect IPv6 implementation that requires a minimal ammount of IPv4 to
start with.

Regards
Fernando

>
>
> That's a theory you have without knowing ARIN tools and possibilities.
>
>
> No, it’s a statement of fact based on actual knowledge and experience.
>
> Again, it doesn't matter much the theoretical possibilities. There will
> always be unlimited. What matters most is to have as a policy what is
> correct, fair and in the interest of community.
>
>
> Yes, but as I have repeatedly said, what you propose is bad policy. The
> potential for abuse is merely icing on the toxic cake.
>
>
> It is the interest of community that more organizarions and consequently
> users can connect to the Internet, develop new business and make up new
> technology and it is fair to think to make things to keep fitting newcomers
> to this industry.
>
>
> The interest of the community is the demise of IPv4 as the lingua Franca
> and the end of allowing organizations that fail to deploy IPv6 to continue
> externalizing the cost of their failure onto the rest of us.
>
> Owen
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20240221/dfc03524/attachment.htm>