<html>
<body>
<br>
Ed:<br><br>
As you suggest, I think that there are implication of some policies in
others.<br><br>
While I usually don't particpate very much in policy discussions, this
issue is of a great importance for the future of the RIR's system, so, I
will make an exception.<br>
My view is that we need some kind of "soft landing"
proposal, but we face two probable problems.<br><br>
1) The current IANA-RIRs IPv4 allocation policies works in a way in
which as much IPv4 addresses an RIR allcocate to their custumers/members,
as much IPv4 addresses they can receive from IANA. So, to apply this kind
of policies in one region would probably put that region in disadvantage
in relation to the other regions. So, the first problem is that a policy
like this probably would not be adopted only in one region. The challenge
is coordination. Coordination means from my perspective to have a
cross-regional dialogue in order to analyze the pertinence of promotint
some kind of "soft landing" proposals in every region. (not
necessarily the same policy in every region, but based in the same
concept/objective)<br><br>
2) As you pointed out, there is a relation between soft landing
proposal and the other proposals that are being discussed. (distribution
of the last part of the free IPv4 pool)<br>
But, IMHO the relation is the opposite of what you mentioned. Since the
distribution of the last part of the IPv4 pool will naturally take off
pressure from the unallocated pool and will help to avoid a competition
for that pool, it probably will create a better environment to implement
"soft landing" policies. <br><br>
<br>
I will submit a proposal to all the RIRs' lists in order to address what
I identify as the first problem, but it should not be considered as an
opposition to the David's proposal.<br><br>
<br><br>
Raśl<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
At 11:32 a.m. 05/10/2007, Edward Lewis wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">At 16:10 -0500 10/2/07, Bill
Darte wrote:<br><br>
>As shepherd of the ARIN Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing, I would
like to<br>
>ask the community to once again consider this proposal in advance of
the<br>
>Albuquerque Public Policy and Membership Meetings<br>
>(<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<br>
>for this proposal with concise reasoning.<br><br>
It would certainly be bad to "abdicate responsibility"...<br>
<br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
So, on the other hand, I think that the IPv4 Soft Landing might be
"trying to hard" to protect ourselves.<br><br>
Ultimately, in a vacuum, it's a good proposal. But considering
other ideas floating around I have doubt that it's the right
mechanism.<br><br>
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?<br>
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.)<br><br>
<pre>--
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<br>
Edward
Lewis
+1-571-434-5468<br>
NeuStar<br><br>
Think glocally. Act confused.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Public Policy<br>
Mailing List (PPML@arin.net).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml</a> Please contact the ARIN
Member Services<br>
Help Desk at info@arin.net if you experience any
issues.</blockquote></body>
<br>
</html>