[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)

On Aug 5, 2013, at 9:15 AM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 03:35:25PM -0400, Tom Vest wrote:
>> 
>> On Aug 4, 2013, at 10:59 AM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 04:35:25PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 3:41 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 8/1/13 12:27 , Tore Anderson wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> * Nick Hilliard
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 01/08/2013 07:38, Tore Anderson wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> +Fair use: Public IPv4 address space must be fairly distributed to the
>>>>>>>> End Users operating networks.;
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> can you define "fair"?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> I believe the primary definition of fairness the RIR communities have been
>>>>> using is, "only those that have *verified operational need* get Internet
>>>>> number resources".
>>>> 
>>>> This is how Internet number resources have been handled for years;
>>>> organizations without verified operational needs have received Internet
>>>> number resources, some in huge quantities.
>>>> 
>>>> One could easily argue that this is one of the root problems with former
>>>> Internet number resource handling.
>>>> 
>>>> Fortunately, IPv6 came to the rescue.
>>> 
>>> 	Pragmatically, there is zero chance of verification of operational need 
>>> 	for anything larger than a /96 in IPv6 space....  So the rules for v6
>>> 	allocation actually are fairly close to the original v4 allocation policies.
>>> 
>>> 	The concept of verified operational need arose in times of scarcity, when 
>>> 	there was -no- other option.  Those times have past and its not clear to me
>>> 	why there remains this slavish devotion to having an unlicensed regulator
>>> 	second guess the viability of a given operational model.
>> 
>> Hi Bill,  
>> 
>> Out of curiosity, about how many Class As would you say had been assigned before that scarcity came to be widely recognized, and the
>> concept of "verified operational need" was first articulated? At that time, was promptly doling out all of the remaining Class As on a first first-come-first served basis *not* considered an option? If not, why not? If the prospect of creating an operating environment in which critical number resources were collectively, indefinitely controlled by a relatively small minority of the total number of operators who could such resources to similarly good use (and whose commercial/existential viability would forevermore be contingent on the terms of their access to someone else's number resources) was not considered a viable option back then, what makes it any more palatable now? 
>> 
>> Granted, both the numerator (resource-haves) and the denominator (have-nots) numbers have grown several orders of magnitude over the ensuing years, but how exactly does that matter if the resulting fraction remains broadly unchanged? 
>> 
>> Curiously, 
>> 
>> TV
> 
> 	/8, pre or post classfull addressing?
> 	pre-classful, all there was were /8's.   Kind of like all there are now
> 	are /64s in v6 land.
> 
> 	when ~10% of the total v4 pool was allocated, scarcity triggered the creation
> 	of classful addressing, which gave us /16 and /24 space in v4-land.
> 
> 	at ~40% of the total v4 pool, scarcity created CIDR and started on developing v6-land.
> 
> 	I'd suggest that with the viablity of IPv6, that the remaining v4 pool is simply 
> 	vestigal and its getting far more traction than it deserves.   We are clearly
> 	not in a position of scarcity when we hand out, to individual devices, the functional
> 	equivalent of the -entire- v4 pool, raised to the 32nd power.
> 
> 	That is the most profligate waste of address space I have ever seen and these petty
> 	"verified operational use" arguments seem farcical and almost hypocritical in
> 	comparison.
> 
> /bill

Hi Bill, 

I agree that, *once* the viability of IPv6 has been established widely, including as a stand-alone alternative to IPv4 for new entrants who have no IPv4 of their own*, IPv4 issues will indeed become vestigial. 

In the mean time, I interpret your use of "profligate waste" to mean something like "possessing exclusive right to use (of addresses) in quantities that vastly exceed 'operational need,' or capability to put to productive use." I could understand a general distaste for "waste" of this kind on purely aesthetic grounds, but given your visceral reaction I can only assume that you believe that such waste has a cost -- and since exclusive of possession of "profligate" quantities of number resources can be privately beneficial to the possessor under certain conditions, I'm tempted to assume that the costs of profligacy that concern you are the costs that are imposed by the "profligate" on everyone else, in the form of needlessly accelerated scarcity and/or exhaustion of resources that could otherwise be put to productive use by others...

If that interpretation is not too far off-base, then I guess you must know something about the state of IPv6 usage* that I don't know -- or maybe, your definition of "waste" excludes anything that has been paid for, even if the purchased/idle stockpiles serve no other purpose than to exacerbate demand/scarcity among others... ?

TV