[LACNIC/Politicas] Fwd: Re: IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-Support Requested

Raul Echeberria raul at lacnic.net
Mon Oct 8 10:52:17 BRT 2007

Estimados amigos:

En la región de ARIN se están discutiendo varias 
propuestas de políticas que serán tratadas en la 
próxima reunión de ARIN a realizarse la próxima semana.
Una de las propuestas es sobre lo que se ha dado 
en llamar "IPv4 soft landing"  y consiste en la 
implementación de cambios graduales en los 
requerimientos para la asignación de direcciones 
IPv4 en la medida en que el pool central de direcciones va disminuyendo.

Acabo de enviar el siguiente mail a la lista de 
políticas de ARIN y me pareció también importante compartirlo con ustedes.

En este mail hago mención a una propuesta que 
enviaré. Por supuesto que la enviaré también a la lista de LACNIC.

Espero que les resulte de interés.



>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on
>         micron2.lacnic.net.uy
>X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
>         MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.2.1
>X-Original-To: raul at lacnic.net.uy
>Delivered-To: raul at lacnic.net.uy
>Delivered-To: raul at lacnic.net
>X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at lacnic.net
>X-Original-To: ppml at lists.arin.net
>Delivered-To: ppml at lists.arin.net
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
>Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:42:37 -0300
>To: ppml at arin.net
>From: Raul Echeberria <raul at lacnic.net>
>X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
>X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: ,
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-Support
>  Requested
>X-BeenThere: ppml at arin.net
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
>List-Id: Public Policy Mailing List <ppml.arin.net>
>List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml>,
>         <mailto:ppml-request at arin.net?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml>
>List-Post: <mailto:ppml at arin.net>
>List-Help: <mailto:ppml-request at arin.net?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml>,
>         <mailto:ppml-request at arin.net?subject=subscribe>
>Sender: ppml-bounces at arin.net
>X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please 
>contact the ISP for more information
>X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: ppml-bounces at arin.net
>X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.5.488 [269.14.1/1050]
>As you suggest, I think that there are implication of some policies in others.
>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.
>My view is that we need some kind of  "soft 
>landing" proposal, but we face two probable problems.
>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)
>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)
>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.
>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.
>At 11:32 a.m. 05/10/2007, Edward Lewis wrote:
>>At 16:10 -0500 10/2/07, Bill Darte wrote:
>> >As shepherd of the ARIN Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing, I would like to
>> >ask the community to once again consider this proposal in advance of the
>> >Albuquerque Public Policy and Membership Meetings
>> >( http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/index.html) and voice support or non-support
>> >for this proposal with concise reasoning.
>>It would certainly be bad to "abdicate responsibility"...
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>So, on the other hand, I think that the IPv4 
>>Soft Landing might be "trying to hard" to protect ourselves.
>>Ultimately, in a vacuum, it's a good 
>>proposal.  But considering other ideas floating 
>>around I have doubt that it's the right mechanism.
>>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?
>>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.)
>>Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
>>Think glocally.  Act confused.
>>You are receiving this message because you are 
>>subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
>>Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>You are receiving this message because you are 
>subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
>Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the Politicas mailing list