<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Jul 11, 2013 8:55 AM, "Chris Grundemann" <<a href="mailto:cgrundemann@gmail.com">cgrundemann@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Mike Burns <<a href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com">mike@nationwideinc.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > I see conservation not as a principle, I mean really the guiding principle<br>
> > should have been distribution of addresses, not conservation of them.<br>
> > The goal was to grow the Internet through the dissemination of addresses.<br>
> > Conservation was not the principle, it was the means to prevent the emptying<br>
> > of the free pool by bad actors.<br>
><br>
> Not true. As I have pointed out in several fora several times before,<br>
> conservation of the number space is NOT the same as conservation of a<br>
> free pool of addresses. The principle here is conservation of the<br>
> number space - the whole thing, not one arbitrary slice of it.<br>
><br>
> The definition of conservation from the science dictionary may be<br>
> helpful in illustrating what is meant by conservation of Internet<br>
> numbers: Conservation is generally held to include the management of<br>
> human use of natural resources for current public benefit and<br>
> sustainable social and economic utilization. In this case the resource<br>
> is the unique Internet number spaces (not just free pools).<br>
><br>
> > These recent incarnations of this proposal continue to try to shoehorn<br>
> > conservation as a principle, even to the point of including conservation<br>
> > inside registration.<br>
> > I don’t think it is either a principal or a goal, for that matter, just a<br>
> > protective mechanism for free pool addresses.<br>
> > With the exhaustion of the free pool, conservation has no place in the NRPM.<br>
> > Until that time, we don’t need to clutter the NRPM with some hoary language<br>
> > from another era.<br>
><br>
> If I can be so trite as to quote myself:<br>
><br>
> "Understanding that the useful life of IPv4 is far from over (raise<br>
> your hand if you have used IPv4 for a critical communication in the<br>
> past 24 hours) makes it quite easy to see that we still have a need to<br>
> "maximise the lifetime of the public IPv4 address space."<br>
><br>
> In fact, the IANA and RIR free pools have essentially been a buffer<br>
> protecting us from those who would seek to abuse the public IPv4<br>
> address space. As long as there was a reserve of IPv4 addresses,<br>
> perturbations caused by bad actors could be absorbed to a large extent<br>
> by doling out "new" addresses into the system under the care of more<br>
> responsible folks. Now that almost all of the public IPv4 address<br>
> space has moved from RIR pools into the "wild," there is arguably a<br>
> much greater need to practice conservation. The loss of the RIR free<br>
> pool buffer does not mark the end of "the lifetime of the public IPv4<br>
> address space" as Tore suggests but rather marks our entry into a new<br>
> phase of that lifetime where stockpiling and hoarding have become even<br>
> more dangerous."[1]<br>
><br>
> > I am still against the proposal.<br>
><br>
> As is your right.<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">Who would benefit from hoarding?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Hoarding seems like economic "dumping", there are rules and policies around it, but it has never really occured because the economics are wrong. The market ensures dumping does not occur.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Or like the FUD about walmart driving local business out and then jacking up prices after competition is gone, its just fud. People made a big noise about it 20 years ago, not any more. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I think the market is only interestes in transactions. Ipv4 addresses are like most cars, they depreciate rapidly so hoarding is not a real thing.</p>
<p dir="ltr">And, with google fiber at 77% ipv6 and vzw over 25%, i must say i would no hoard ipv4. </p>
<p dir="ltr">But, my ask is, lets not assume hoarding or threats to ipv4 by bad actors unless there is a real case that applies.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Afaik, arin brought transfers in to increase efficiency</p>
<p dir="ltr">CB<br>
> Cheers,<br>
> ~Chris<br>
><br>
> [1] - <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130523_removing_need_at_ripe/">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130523_removing_need_at_ripe/</a><br>
><br>
> > Regards,<br>
> > Mike Burns<br>
><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > PPML<br>
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<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 <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> @ChrisGrundemann<br>
> <a href="http://chrisgrundemann.com">http://chrisgrundemann.com</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<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 <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</p>