<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Sep 3, 2012, at 08:24 , Joe Maimon <<a href="mailto:jmaimon@chl.com">jmaimon@chl.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><br>Owen DeLong wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">On Sep 1, 2012, at 20:44 , Joe Maimon <<a href="mailto:jmaimon@chl.com">jmaimon@chl.com</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br>Owen DeLong wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">The goal of ARIN address policy is to place addresses in service where they are needed so long as that is possible.<br><br>This is the overarching goal of both the allocation policy _AND_ the transfer policy.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br>The allocation policy is relevant only so long as ARIN has an allocation pool. Which I want to see last as long as possible, since it is certain not to last long enough.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>This is where we utterly and completely disagree. Making the free pool last artificially longer by disadvantaging legitimate uses of the address space today is not a win and is contrary to ARIN's mission statement, IMHO.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br>Keeping addresses in inventory when they are needed in implementations is every bit as counterproductive to that goal as would be eliminating the justified need requirement from allocation or transfer policy.<br><br>If policy is prematurely driving people to the transfer market because of the huge discrepancy in terms we have created with recent policy changes, then, it is evidence that that discrepancy is harmful.<br><br>Owen<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br>No, it is evidence that the consumption has adapted to the change of supply. And in positive ways, for the longevity of Ipv4. So which is it? Do you appreciate the benefits of the transfer markets and are happy that it is being used or you are unhappy about its use and would like for us all to be subjected solely to its mercies ever sooner?<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div>I appreciate the benefits of the transfer market but also recognize its limitations and disadvantages. Inflicting those limitations and disadvantages on some class of users earlier in order to delay it for other classes of users is not good policy and as it does not meet the required fairness test.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br>Demand is flexible. Therefore, so is supply.<br><br></blockquote>To some extent...<br></blockquote><br>Apparently to the extent measurable by the ARIN allocation fall-off not made up for in transfer market.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div>More than likely this is a temporary rather than permanent phenomenon. Most likely many organizations are postponing additional requests due to the increased difficulty of obtaining those addresses which will eventually lead to a greater crush of supply at a later date.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">For a finite resource, such as globally unique IPv4 addresses, eventually you reach a point where demand exceeds supply at any achievable price point and the market effectively terminates.<br></blockquote><br>Currently, the evidence suggests we are nowhere near that point.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div>Does it? I don't know how much supply remains at achievable prices and I'm not sure what you are looking at that tells you it is vast or that more than $15 per address is necessarily an achievable price point.</div><div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><blockquote type="cite">Your hope is that the demand will be satisfied elsewhere, namely IPv6. And that it will be a sudden relentless wave.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div>No, my expectation is that eventually, IPv6 must replace IPv4 as the lingua franca of the global internet because there is currently no other available solution which will allow the internet to continue to grow and provide the same vital functions that it provides today. My hope is that we will do that sooner rather than later because it will be much less traumatic, much less disruptive, and much less expensive.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">Do you have reason to be hopeful or is that simply what you have banked on and wish to happen?<br></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes, I have many reasons to be hopeful...</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>IPv6 adoption is growing</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Growth in IPv6 adoption is accelerating</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>No matter what you do to try and work around it, IPv4 cannot scale to support the internet much beyond its</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>current size. Efforts to do otherwise have been degrading the capabilities of the internet for more than a</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>decade now and all evidence is that this will continue to get worse and not better going forward. Many</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>indications are that it will get rapidly and substantially worse.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>4.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>There is strong evidence to suggest that IPv4 is unsustainable and that any of a variety of run-out related</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>factors and activities will eventually make IPv4 utterly unusable.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br>That's not what I am advocating, either.<br></blockquote><br>A return to the 12 month burn rate, which you advocated for, equated to exhaustion within this calendar year, followed by the transfer market solely being responsible for efficient utilization.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>It equates to all of the RIRs being out at similar times. This is actually advantageous as it is less likely to push for asymmetrical deployments of IPv4 continuation technologies creating a more drawn out transition process with greater pain and dysfunction.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">Same difference.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>See above... There is a very real and meaningful difference.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br><blockquote type="cite">What do you think will happen when ARIN free pool dries up? Who will have the addresses then? Will we still need them? If we do, how will we get them? And will we as a whole be better off then now?<br></blockquote></blockquote>The non rose-tinted view is that all those who need addresses will be subjected solely to the mercy of the transfer market, largely composed of very large players and large legacy holders, a set of entities that overlaps to some extent and will have a natural tendency to self-organize into a cartel like formation. Their rules and prices will be what matters and they will have conflicted interest (at best) at moving their customer (victim) base over to v6 where rir policy returns to relevancy.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div>I would call that the ultra-cynical view and also one which ignores the following realities:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Most growth in the ARIN region is in the mobile market.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>VZW and T-Mobile have put huge effort and investment in moving their mobile</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>solutions towards IPv6.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T have all put significant investment in making IPv6</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>available to their broadband subscriber base and are continuing to expand that</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>offering to more of their subscribers.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>4.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Many other broadband providers are engaged in similar efforts.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>5.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The majority of large legacy holders are not ISPs.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>6.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The majority of ISPs that are large legacy holders hold more non-legacy space than</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>legacy space at this point.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>7.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Nobody who has looked at the technology seriously wants to run a large-scale</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>CGN deployment in a country subject to CALEA or CALEA-like legislation.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>8.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Nobody who has looked at the technology seriously from an operations perspective</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>wants to maintain a CGN deployment at any scale.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">We will not be better off. There is no way to predict how long IPv4 will remain relevant and/or necessary.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>We will be better off in that we will not extend the duration of IPv4 relevance to cause greater pain and</div><div>disruption.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Extending the duration of the ARIN free pool by creating an early artificial shortage through policy<br></blockquote>Extending the availability of the ARIN free pool by reducing its burn rate is the only sane approach.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div>Extending the availability of the ARIN free pool is impossible. What you are talking about is extending</div><div>the duration of the ARIN free pool by reducing its availability and making it asymmetrically and unfairly</div><div>unavailable to various classes of users to the benefit of a class of users you happen to advocate.</div><div><br></div><div>As a community member, I can somewhat sympathize with your view even though I find it misguided.</div><div><br></div><div>While the above thoughts are my own personal opinion and do not represent an official statement of</div><div>the AC (or even agree with the official opinion of the AC), my personal thoughts on this matter are</div><div>partially shaped by my obligation as an AC member to insist that policy be fair, technically sound,</div><div>and useful to the community.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>