[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hi Martin,

I'm sorry but your message contains so many lines of reasoning that I cannot follow that I have no way of giving you a meaningful response...

Sincerely,
Sander 



> Op 20 feb. 2015 om 02:30 heeft Martin Millnert <millnert at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Hi Sander!
> 
>> On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 01:15 +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> Hello Martin,
>> 
>>> I'm generally in favour of any proposal that hastens the run-out of
>>> the final /8.
>> 
>> The main design goal for the final /8 policy was to make sure that
>> newcomers still had the possibility of participating on the IPv4
>> internet.
> 
> Indeed.  Participate with a major handicap however. One could even argue
> that it is in fact anti-competitive compared with the rules pre final-/8
> policy.
> 
> The major architectural reason for and result of it was and is to buy
> RIPE NCC time to adjust to the post-depletion Internet world order.
> 
>> It is unfortunately still not possible to run an ISP, hoster etc.
>> with only IPv6.
> 
> Indeed it is not.  It is likewise pretty futile to launch a new business
> as an ISP or hoster on a total of 1024 addresses.  Any 'relevant'
> business plan for either will necessarily have to contain plans for
> acquiring much more than 1024 IPv4 addresses, since the availability of
> addresses, especially for hosters, is basically proportional to the
> growth possibility of the business.
> 
>> Without the final /8 policy every new company would have to get
>> (borrow, buy, rent, ...) IPv4 addresses from existing companies that
>> already got IPv4 addresses before we ran out of addresses to
>> distribute using our needs-based allocation policies.
> 
> Yes.  Why is this worse than getting addresses from RIPE NCC's free
> pool, other than the fact that RIPE NCC sells pretty cheap addresses?
> 
>> With the final /8 policy they don't get much but at least they are
>> able to participate on the internet. There is still an imbalance
>> because of the low amount of addresses they get but at least they have
>> *something* to work with.
> 
> I've found size /22 sufficiently large to connect your average random
> SMB to the DFZ.
> 
>> I do feel that as a community we should take this into account.
>> Although I am sure there are many governments who want to take control
>> over the internet we still are in a position that we can (are allowed
>> to?) self-regulate the distribution of number resources. 
> 
> I'll respond to this paragraph with four points:
> 
> 1) Controlling Internet is much less about deciding who can have what
> address space uniquely, from a pool of unallocated space, than it is
> about deciding who gets to keep the address space.
>  Secondary to this is the right of actually using the routing policy
> without interference. Many so-called democratic countries already
> implement filtering by hijacking via more-specifics, often based on
> actual laws, laws that won't change regardless of what this community
> self-regulates.
> 
> 2) Since the final /8 will run out sooner (but IMO not soon enough)
> rather than later, this community's ability to self-regulate the
> distribution of IPv4 addresses is completely dead-end.
> 
> 3) Once v4 address space is depleted and there is no more free pool to
> distribute from, the requirement for a needs based distribution model
> vanishes. If there is no more scarce resource, there is no more need to
> regulate it.
> Therefore it could be hypothesized that depleting the final /8 would
> *reduce* the need for governments to absorb regulatory work from the
> RIPE NCC.  Address space becomes increasingly indistinguishable from
> radio frequencies - a right to transmit - however with typically global
> reach.
> 
> 4) Also, once RIPE NCC's pools are depleted, some non-trivial amount of
> bureaucracy will basically go into the shredder, to my and Douglas Adams
> delight, saving on the environment.  The green choice is therefore to
> accelerate the run-out.
> 
>> If we only think about ourselves (the existing participants on the
>> internet) and block new entrants from getting even that tiny fraction
>> of the addresses that most of us got for free in the past then I am
>> afraid that this won't last very long.
> 
> You bring up blocking of new entrants.   To paraphrase Bill Gates, "1024
> addresses are enough for everybody".  If you were truly honest about
> welcoming new entrants to compete on equal terms, a /22 is not enough.
> 
> Your fear for post-depletion is irrational in my opinion.  You need to
> start entertaining the idea of the fact that it will happen.  
> 
> Post-depletion, what do you think governments will need to regulate and
> why do you fear it?
> 
> Are you afraid some country with more military than address space
> compared to its neighbour will use the former to get more of the latter,
> from one that "got lucky"?
> 
> Or are you afraid that governments will apply needs-based logic on
> already allocated address space?  --> "No ISPs with blue in the logo may
> exist any more, now return the space to our national regulatory body,
> thanks"
> 
> The best way of mitigating those examples is to empower people to
> themselves value their need of address space vs the need of the goods
> that it can be traded for.  I am convinced that world order will be very
> healthy.
>  If there's any worry about job security, the stock markets of today do
> employ people, and keep track of who has what. It's not very different
> from what's required from a regional registrar in the future. 
> And you seldom see governments walking around redistributing stock
> between owners by force.
> 
> 
>> Comments from the working group on this are highly appreciated :)
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Sander
>> 
>> PS: I don't have a strong opinion on the policy proposal under discussion, sorry for drifting a bit from this thread's subject
> 
> I think this discussion is more relevant to APWG than the policy
> proposal at hand. :-)
> 
> /M - Pondering the merits of a "reverse the final /8 policy" proposal.
>