Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Dorn Hetzel <dhetzel () gmail com>]

If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on
demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space would
ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money.

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Kevin Stange <kevin () steadfast net> wrote:

> On 04/08/2010 10:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> > > Legacy holders have been holding parts (possibly more than they would
> > > be able to justify from an RIR) of a finite global shared resource
> > > without sharing in the costs associated, and it's unfair to _them_
> > > that they're not _entitled_ to do the same in the IPv6 space?
> >
> > When ARIN's costs are largely legal costs to go "enforcing" v4 policy
> > and a bureaucracy to go through all the policy and paperwork?  The
> > finiteness of the resource is irrelevant; it does not cost ARIN any
> > more or less to do its task in the v4 arena.  There is a cost to the
> > global Internet for v4 depletion, yes, but ARIN is not paying any of
> > us for forwarding table entries or forced use of NAT due to lack of
> > space, so to imply that ARIN's expenses are in any way related to the
> > finiteness of the resource is a laughable argument (you're 8 days
> > late).
> >
> > It would be better to dismantle the current ARIN v6 framework and do
> > a separate v6 RIR.  In v6, there's an extremely limited need to go
> > battling things in court, one could reduce expenses simply by giving
> > the benefit of the doubt and avoiding stuff like Kremen entirely.  In
> > the old days, nearly anyone could request -and receive- a Class C or
> > even Class B with very little more than some handwaving.  The main
> > reason to tighten that up was depletion; with IPv6, it isn't clear
> > that the allocation function needs to be any more complex than what
> > used to exist, especially for organizations already holding v4
> > resources.
> >
> > So, my challenges to you:
> >
> > 1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6
> >    numbering resources,
> >
> > 2) Tell me why something like the old pre-depletion pre-ARIN model
> >    of InterNIC and just handing out prefixes with substantially less
> >    paper-pushing wouldn't result in a cheaper-to-run RIR.
>
> Just because the benefit of being cautious isn't clear doesn't mean we
> should simply throw caution to the wind entirely and go back to the "old
> ways."  It seems clear to many now that a lot of the legacy allocations,
> /8's in particular were issued in a way that has left IPv4 inefficiently
> allocated and with lack of any agreements by the resource holders to
> have any responsibility to do anything about it.
>
> If we just eliminated the RIRs and agreements governing terms of access
> to v6 allocations, IF later, we find a problem with the process and
> start to run out of space, we end up in the same situation.  Suddenly we
> have to form these organizations again, and institute new allocation
> policies for new allocations, but again lack any recourse for all those
> people that "greedily" ate up as much space as they could.
>
> I think there's a continued need to keep an organization in charge of
> accounting for the space to whom we as resource holders are accountable
> and whom is also accountable to us.  Later on, when we realize we've
> gone wrong somewhere (and it will happen) and need to make changes to
> policy, there is a process by which we can do it where all the parties
> involved already have an established relationship.
>
> I am not going to argue your second request.  It'd certainly be cheaper
> to do things your way.  I just think it's a terrible idea.
>
> --
> Kevin Stange
> Chief Technology Officer
> Steadfast Networks
> http://steadfast.net
> Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867