<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7653.38">
<TITLE>RE: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyforIPv4 Addresses - Last Call</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>LOL, when it is no laughing matter....<BR>
Very nice post to wake up to...both in the common sense that is expressed and the creative scenario.<BR>
<BR>
Bill Darte<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of Ron Cleven<BR>
Sent: Fri 1/2/2009 4:42 AM<BR>
To: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyforIPv4 Addresses - Last Call<BR>
<BR>
The stupidity of this discussion is breathtaking. ARIN has yet to even<BR>
begin to change its IPV4 billing policy to make the cost of IPV4<BR>
addresses uniform. That, in turn, would strongly encourage the large<BR>
ISP's (where much of the momentum for IPV6 transition needs to take<BR>
place) to begin the transition. At the same time, it would not hurt the<BR>
"little guy", as their costs would change very little, if any.<BR>
<BR>
Instead, ARIN continues IPV4 billing practices that are encouraging the<BR>
entirely WRONG behavior. Hello?!?!?!?<BR>
<BR>
For those of you who are certain that IPV6 can be a viable and reliable<BR>
alternative to IPV4 in a reasonably short period of time (under the<BR>
right conditions and incentives), I challenge you to get together and<BR>
come up with a transition timeframe that all of you (and ARIN) are<BR>
willing to sign onto as being realistic. Then work towards that goal<BR>
with serious financial incentives aimed squarely at the large ISP's.<BR>
<BR>
If that timeframe is not within the IPV4 runout window, then ARIN has<BR>
not been doing its job. It should have been ratcheting up IPV4 billing<BR>
(leveling the per-ip pricing) to force such a change BEFORE calamity<BR>
strikes. I am stunned at the number of people on this list who are<BR>
complacent about the runout eventuality.<BR>
<BR>
If that timeframe is still within the IPV4 runout window, then great,<BR>
the world may not end at that time, and ARIN, et al, still have time to<BR>
institute coherent policies to make it happen in an ORDERLY fashion.<BR>
<BR>
To keep it very simple, if you assert that IPV6 is the answer, be<BR>
willing to put your money where your mouth is. We should be able to<BR>
establish a date in the not-too-distant future where renewal costs for<BR>
large IPV4 allocations start to become prohibitively expensive. It<BR>
would be really nice if everyone was pulling towards the same reasonable<BR>
goal.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Boss: How is that new inventory management system coming?<BR>
<BR>
Programmer: Great, we finished coding it, and it seems to work.<BR>
<BR>
Boss: So, when will we be ready to do some alpha/beta testing of the UI,<BR>
stress testing, and parallel testing?<BR>
<BR>
Programmer: Oh, I don't see any need to do that.<BR>
<BR>
Boss: Wha?????<BR>
<BR>
Programmer: Our license for the old software expires at the end of the<BR>
month, so we have to switch to the new system then. No point in<BR>
worrying about it until then. It is inevitable, man.<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
PPML<BR>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>
Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>