<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and
Support/Non-</title></head><body>
<div>At 16:10 -0500 10/2/07, Bill Darte wrote:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>>As shepherd of the ARIN Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing, I
would like to</div>
<div>>ask the community to once again consider this proposal in
advance of the</div>
<div>>Albuquerque Public Policy and Membership Meetings</div>
<div>>(<a
href="http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/index.html"
>http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/index.html</a>) and voice support or
non-support</div>
<div>>for this proposal with concise reasoning.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>It would certainly be bad to "abdicate
responsibility"...</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>On the one hand I like the way this proposal thinks, but it
thinks like an engineer. It certainly has the mechanics in it to
achieve the goal of softening the transition pains.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>But I also waver over whether it is worth the effort. At
the APNIC meeting (yes, I know, not "our" region, yet a
public policy meeting none the less) there was a discussion between
two proposals. The two were similar up to a parameter.
Each proposal mandated that IANA operate as is until there were either
1x5 or 2x5 /8's left (assuming the number of RIRs is 5). Once
the last 5 or 10 /8's were left they were handed out evenly to the
RIRs regardless of burn rates.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Of the two, I preferred the handing out of 1 /8 (not the 2 /8).
The reason is that this approach is largely ceremonial. While it
is true that the burn rate of a /8 varies region to region, for 1 /8,
this isn't a significant difference. (There could be a sharp
rise in membership at the lower burn rate organizations, but really,
there isn't much to get at that point.) In the lower burn rate
regions, the symbolism of being given as much a the higher rate seems
somewhat important.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Those proposals are lightweight work-wise, least
command-econonmyish, have probably the right dose of ceremonial
benefit, and aren't trying to delay the pain of the IPv4 run
out.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>So, on the other hand, I think that the IPv4 Soft Landing might
be "trying to hard" to protect ourselves.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Ultimately, in a vacuum, it's a good proposal. But
considering other ideas floating around I have doubt that it's the
right mechanism.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>As an aside - if we delay the run out of IPv4 by 12 months, is
there an indication that the obstacle to IPv6 will be removed in that
12 month period?</div>
<div>If it is the routing system, will 12 more months
improve/strengthen it? (I guess I have never understood the
rationale for "rationing" the remaining IPv4 addresses.
They aren't a consumable {water, oil} and the last won't tide us over
until there's a rescue.)</div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<span
></span>-=-=-=-<br>
Edward
Lewis <span
></span
> <span
></span
> <span
></span
> <span
></span> +1-571-434-5468<br>
NeuStar</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Think glocally. Act confused.</div>
</body>
</html>