ARIN-ppml@May 7, 2009

Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:58:50 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] general vendor comment


First I apologize to the list in advance if this is not an appropriate place
for this comment.

I am making a point of ending any conversation with a vendor with the
question "What is your roadmap for IPv6. Future purchase and renewal
decisions will be affected.". Almost invariably the answer is "Gee, you are
the first person that has asked. We don't have a roadmap. I will forward
this on to our development team and when there is a need I am sure we will
pursue it."

I would suggest to everyone that we all start requesting IPv6 information
from our vendors, and submit feature requests when appropriate. Hardware
and software vendors are not going to spend money to address this issue
until they see a widespread business case to do so.

Kevin


使用している機器のIPv6機能導入予定を問い合わせよう！という呼びかけ。
返事として既にRFPには長らく記載されていて、機能はある。だれも使わないだけ、という
ちょっと悲しいものも。
ま、IPv6だけで生活してみると色々わかることもあるけどね。

ARIN-ppml@Apr 30, 2009

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:10:50 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Effect of ARIN's Letters


ARIN's letters are getting some attention:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/30/2051235

--
Leo Bicknell


ARINから出たレターが本家Slashdotで話題になっています。
以前から議論されていたことですが、ようやくGeeks～一般人の話題に落ちてきたという感じ。
ま、本当の一般人はどうでもいいことなんでしょうけど。
地デジも各国延期みたいだし、期限を切った告知は難しいですね。

ARIN-PPML@Apr 28, 2009

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:45:40 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] RIPE Policy 2008-03 (May be useful about ARIN
2009-02)


Several speakers at the meeting spoke about reducing the timeperiod for
allocations from 12 months to some lower number. RIPE policy 2009-03
attempts to do this, in the RIPE region.

The RIPE policy is at
http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03.html if anyone wants to
read it.

--
Leo Bicknell


当たり前だが全世界で波及するようなポリシーを議論する際、
隣の地域でも大体同じような提案が既に出ていることがあり、議論も集約しつつある場合もある。今回もそういう例。
ARINではなぜか車輪の再発明的な議論が多く巻き起こる気がするが、多くの人が隣の地域の議論を
注視していないからかも。

ARIN-PPML@Apr 10, 2009

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:53:37 -0700
From: Scott Leibrand
Subject: [arin-ppml] Polling on draft policies
To: ARIN PPML
Message-ID: <49DFBFE1.6060803@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

The ARIN Advisory Council discussed the topic of polling at our meeting
on Wednesday. While we didn't make a motion or resolution on the
subject, it looks like we're mostly leaning toward polling the
subscribers PPML on draft policy 2009-1 after the San Antonio public
policy meeting, if we still think it is appropriate after the meeting.
This would allow everyone to express a well-informed opinion after they have
watched/heard/read the deliberative discussion there. It will also
allow us to coordinate the questions asked in the poll with those asked
at the meeting.

In addition, the AC we will also be discussing, in an AC workshop at San
Antonio, the more general question of how to do regular recurring
polling of PPML subscribers, so that we can put something in place for
the next policy cycle.

It is also worth noting that everyone on the PPML is invited to
participate, in person or remotely, in the San Antonio public policy
meeting. If you can't make it in person, the entire meeting is webcast,
and remote participants can now participate in real time, asking
questions, making comments, and voting on the questions put before the
community at the meeting. ARIN has already sent out a note about how to
register as a remote participant, and I would encourage everyone to take
advantage of that opportunity.

-Scott
Member of the ARIN Advisory Council, speaking for myself


2009-1に関して今月のARINミーティング後に投票を検討しているというアナウンス。
ppml購読者なら投票に参加できるらしい。投票してみるかな。

ARIN-PPML@Apr 9, 2009

Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:33:27 -0400
From: Member Services
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
Fund
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery Fund has been revised. This
proposal is open for discussion on this mailing list and
will be on the agenda at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.

The current policy proposal text is provided below and is also available
at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_4.html


Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


2009-4の提案内容変更のお知らせ
2009-4は割当済み未使用IPの返却に資金を出す、その為にIPv4回復基金を設立する、というもの。
ARINではIPv4アドレスブロックの回収に資金を提供するという方向でも議論中。
今月のARINミーティングでコンセンサスになると各地域のポリシー議論に影響を与えるかも。

IPv4アドレスを多数持っている団体が急に保有資産価値が増大→大増税ということも。

ARIN-ppml@Apr 4, 2009

Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 18:36:09 -0400
From: William Herrin
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
To: Dave Mohler
Cc: ARIN PPML
Message-ID:
<3c3e3fca0904041536k5d39bd43u4cdfea1cd34d6876@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Dave Mohler wrote:
> Is it important for a particular set of addresses
> to be transferred from Org A to Org B?

Hi Dave,

Yes it is. Address space that has previously been in use has a
reputation attached to it.

A spammer's space is less usable than, say, the space currently
employed by ARIN for its web site. It's heavily blacklisted and email
systems installed within it won't function properly for months or
years after the spammer vacates.

Similarly, a /24 within a /8 whose minimum allocation is published as
/24 is more likely to route correctly than a /24 within a /8 whose
minimum allocation is published as /22.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


ppmlでもやはりJPOPMでも議論になったように、SPAMMER跡地は欲しくないよね、という意見あり。
他には小さいプレフィックスの中の/24よりも大きいプレフィックスの中の/24の方がいいとも。

ARIN-PPML@Apr 4, 2009

Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 14:45:55 -0700
From: Scott Leibrand
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1, can you
please help?
To: Leo Bicknell
Cc: ARIN PPML
Message-ID: <7A0D01B5-8A60-450F-B22E-2E1261907ACF@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes

That seems like a good way to restore the original sunset date, which
would've been 3 years from IANA exhaustion if the Board hadn't found
it necessary to implement 2008-6 beforehand.

-Scott

On Apr 4, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> In a message written on Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 11:04:58AM -0700, Owen
> DeLong wrote:
>> While I am one of the strongest supporters of the sunset clause idea,
>> I think that 2010 would be far too early. IANA runout will probably
>> occur
>> somewhere in 2010-2011. I think that we will need at least 2-3
>> years of
>> this policy after that date for it to be at all meaningful. Would
>> you
>> accept a 12/31/2013 date?
>
> I'm thinking outloud, so I'm not sure I'd support this myself, but
> what about making the run-out date "3 years after IANA has handed
> out the last /8"?
>
> That way we don't have to guess at when we're out of space now with a
> fixed date.
>
> --
> Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
> PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


2009-1の議論でIPv4枯渇(Sunsetと呼称)の時期についても議論中。
2008-6と密接に関ってくる。

ARIN-ppml@Apr 2, 2009

Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:57:48 -0700
From: "Ted Mittelstaedt"
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of
2009-1 review
To: "'Azinger, Marla'" ,

Message-ID: <46B57B17508D4F3FA5CEF5E0F30556DA@tedsdesk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Marla,

The fact of the matter is that this isn't about the merits of 2009-1
anymore. It is about whether or
not the Board wants to restore trust of the community and de-polarize this
issue.

If 2009-1 is put in place against opposition, then it will be subject to
constant additional
future policy proposals to strip it out, and it will require further
opposition against the majority to
keep it in the policies, which will just widen the breach of trust.
Eventually it will go or the
Board will go and then it will go after that - but by then the atmosphere
will be so poisoned
that we will be hamstrung with dealing with this IPv6 transition at a
critical time.

There is still time now for the Board to apologize and atone for it's
mistake. Atonement is
simple, either withdraw it and all proposals associated and wait for a new,
fresh set of proposals
during the next round, or, restore the sunset clause.

Seriously, this really, really, really isn't about the merits of this
proposal anymore. It
is an issue of trust - the Board broke it, and the cooler heads out here are
all sitting here
scratching our heads as to why the Board simply doesn't acknowledge they
screwed up
and take the extremely simple action, EASILY reversible by policy later, of
just restoring
the sunset clause.

Ted




_____

From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net] On
Behalf Of Azinger, Marla
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:41 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1 review



I've waited for calmer waters to discuss the merits of this proposal in
hopes that others can do the same and not get lost in the sea of procedural
commentary. Just looking at the merits of 2009-1 here is what I came up
with and I would like to hear what other pro's, con's, solutions and
opinions the rest of the community has. While I am grateful for those who
have already posted their opinions to ppml I'm hoping to hear from folks
that have not yet posted to ppml on this subject.

Sunset Clause (was taken out of 2009-1)
Pro: Sets a hard date to stop transfers and resume original policy.
Con: A hard date could be totally the wrong date.
Con: Results may show evidence that keeping the transfer policy as permanent
policy is better for the ARIN than reverting back to original policy.
Alternate solution: It might be better to write in a clause the requires
review and analysis of the state of address space availability every year.
If there proves to be zero difficulty fulfilling IP requests for a period of
one year then revert back to original policy and deactivate this policy.
My opinion: Its cleaner and easier not to have a sunset clause or anything
of its kind. If in the future we enter into free flowing address space
again, we can always enact the policy process to revert back to the original
transfer policy. Either way its not a show stopper but going without it
seems to me to be the best way.


Implementation Date Now and no wait time
Pro: Immediate implementation would halt the growth of the Black Market
which is currently active and growing.
Pro: Immediate implementation would help preserve WHOIS data.
Con: The free world of addressing as we currently know it comes to an end.
Alternate solution: Wait till the address availability has reached a choking
point.
My opinion: It sucks to see there is no escape from supply and demand. The
former utopian addressing world was great but the fact is when the quantity
of anything becomes limited, people no longer freely share or give but
require some form of monetary return. We can't escape the fundamentals of
supply and demand and I believe maintaining the integrity of WHOIS as much
as possible is more important than clinging to the past and in that time
frame watching the black market grow and the accuracy of IP usage and record
of authoritative source decline. We already need to improve in those areas
and this isn't a jab to start that discussion on ppml right now, but it
would be best to in the least take action that stops it from getting any
worse while at the same time ensuring conservation/proper usage.


New Definition "Organization. An Organization is one or more legal entities
under common control or ownership."
Pro: This will force organizations into proper management of IP addresses.
Pro: This could cut down on waste from large organizations that are
segmented.
Con: Large segmented organizations will have to face management of address
space on a higher level. Currently one organization can own three or more
companies that up until now have operated separately when it came to address
management. With this additional definition Company A could have allot of
address space that effectively stops Company B from getting more address
space because per the new definition the addresses would need to be shared
among the whole Organization not individually by Company as in the past.
This would force address management up to the organizational level.
Alternate solution: Grandfather existing organizations.
My opinion: While this may be difficult to swallow for some organizations I
believe its the most accurate and efficient way to manage address space. It
may also serve as an indirect push towards the adoption of IPv6.


Clarification needed on what this policy specifically is applied to (v4, v6
both?)
New wording doesnt clarify that this is supposed to be for IPv4 only. I
think it needs to be clear what this policy will be applied to as it makes
sense for IPv4 but not IPv6 since its needed due to a supply and demand
situation.

In Summary:
As I went through this I was surprised to find that I actually think the
changes made are appropriate. I don't think the sunset clause is a
functioning tool. I think implementation now makes sense as opposed to
waiting and the new definition to "Organizations" makes sense in regards to
address conservation and management.


Those are my 2 cents. I hope to hear from the other community members that
have not yet posted thoughts about the policy text itself.

Cheers
Marla Azinger


Marlaがまとめた2009-1の利点と欠点を切っ掛けに流れが変わってきた感じ。
彼女は皆が思う懸念・恐れを綺麗にまとめ、みんなが読める形にした。素晴らしい。

ARIN-ppml@Apr 2, 2009

Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:46:07 -0500
From: "Kevin Kargel"
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?" (CNN;
quotes from Ben Edelman)
To: "Ron Cleven" ,
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF87@mail>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Ron Cleven
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:53 AM
> To: ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?"
> (CNN;quotes from Ben Edelman)
>
> Gee, what an idea! I guess it sounds smarter when someone from Harvard
> says it.
>
> Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> > http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/03/28/execed.websites/index.html

Amazing, you would almost think that Harvard had a whole bunch of IP's they
weren't using that they would like to sell at a profit! lol


IPv4枯渇とアドレス販売のCNNのレポートに関して「ハーバードの教授が言うと賢く聞こえるね」などと茶化しています。

ARIN-ppml@Mar 30, 2009

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lee Howard
Subject: [arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and Mar 18,
2009
To: ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <376189.27706.qm@web63303.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8



The community has requested clarification from the Board on
the series of events and motivations that led to the emergency draft proposal
2009-1: Transfer Policy.

At its February 6, 2009 meeting, the Board accepted the recommendation of the
Advisory Council, finding that the process had been followed, and adopted
policy proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses. The
Board has been concerned for some time that the lack of a liberalized transfer
policy would create legal risk: that we had not provided a mechanism to improve
the efficient utilization of previously-allocated resources, and that this risk was
significant enough to jeopardize ARIN?s ability to fulfill its stewardship mission.

The sense of the Board is that a transfer policy is needed well before IANA?s
last IPv4 allocation, to allow early transfers and ease the demand for IPv4
numbers from ARIN. Allowing for the possibility that demand might increase
as IANA allocates its last IPv4 numbers, the Board believes that there is
insufficient time for another full policy cycle. The policy in 2008-6 allowed
the Board to activate it by declaring an emergency, which the Board did.
The policy had certain gaps which, in the Board?s opinion, allowed for
exploitation. As noted in the minutes of the February 6 meeting, the Board
resolved to make certain edits to the policy that had just been adopted.
These edits were out of order: according to ARIN?s Policy Development
Process, the Board of Trustees may (in emergency circumstances) suspend
a policy or propose a policy, but may not edit the Number Resource Policy
Manual directly. Therefore, at its March 18, 2009 meeting, the Board
rescinded its action editing the policy, and proposed a new policy, which is
2009-1: Transfer Policy. The minutes of that meeting will be published once
Board members have reviewed them, according to the published procedure.


The
discussion of Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy has provided
valuable
input to the Board of Trustees. The Board notes that this draft policy
includes substantial
changes to current policy, and encourages constructive
discussion of the
draft policy as written.

Lee Howard
ARIN Secretary, but speaking without Board resolution


紛糾しているARINでの議論「2009-1」に関してARIN AC/Boardが、
どのような動機で"emergency"として牽引したかの明確化する為の投稿。
それを受けて、今までの「2009-1」の議論のまとめが投稿されました。


Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:10:52 -0400
From: "Alexander, Daniel"
Subject: [arin-ppml] Summary of 2009-1 discussion so far
To:
Message-ID:
<997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800A83EE7D@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


Hello All,

This email is rather long but I wanted to try and summarize some of the
discussion of 2009-1 so far. My apologies if I neglected any particular
comments or if my counts might be off. I was trying to select one or two
points from each of the major issues, and I was consolidating more than
one thread. If you have not done so already, please let the AC know if
you are in favor or against this proposal, or if you have specific
suggestions as to how the wording should be changed.

Thanks,
Dan Alexander
ARIN AC


PPML Postings: As of 5pm 3/30

In Favor:

None stated


Opposed:

Leo Bicknell
Kevin Kargel
Ted Mittelstaedt
William Herrin
Seth Mattinen
Jeremy H Griffith
Jay Hennigan


Contributions:

1 Dan Alexander
7 Leo Bicknell
1 Cort Buffington (CB)
1 Dale W Carder
3 John Curran
7 Bill Darte
3 Owen DeLong (OD)
4 Michael Dillon
7 David Farmer
1 Jeremy H Griffith (JG)
5 Martin Hannigan (MH)
1 Jay Hennigan
6 William Herrin (WH)
5 Lee Howard (LH)
11 Kevin Kargel
4 Mathew Kaufman
2 Eliot Lear
4 Scott Leibrand (SL)
2 Seth Mattinen (SM)
6 Ted Mittelstaedt
3 Milton L Mueller
4 John Schnizlein
1 Michael K Smith
1 Stephen Sprunk
2 Bill Woodcock


Notable Points:

Recurring questions of clarity and procedure.
Why did the BoT use the Emergency PDP?
Where is the proper explanation in the meeting minutes?
What was the emergency?
Why was this needed?
Is 2008-6 actually accepted and just not implemented?

(OD) "The same argument could be made about laws with sunset clauses,
but, the same applies. While it is true that the community can change
things and could even repeal a sunset clause, the sunset clause creates
a default action that occurs unless the community takes action.
Additionally, repealing a policy, even
if there is strong community consensus to do so, takes time. By having
a sunset clause in place, it clearly indicates that the intent of the
community is for the policy to be temporary and short-term in nature,
and, it creates a default action of removing the policy after some
period of time, rather than requiring additional subsequent action by
the community to do so."

(LB) "In broad terms, sunset provisions can be used for two purposes:
- To reduce future workload on a body where it is expected the item
will no longer be useful at some point. Rather than having to waste
time removing old policy it automatically goes.
- To require a body to re-evaluate an item via the normal debate
process in the future because the current authors are worried
the plan is not yet perfect, and/or the situation may change."

(WH) "2008-06 intentionally sunsetted section 8.4 three years after
adoption. This was no accident: the community has long been suspicious
of processes that effectively permit the sale of IP addresses from one
party to another. We're willing to give it a chance, but if we don't
like what we see, we don't want to have to fight again to take the
policy back out... especially with the board hinting it might try
sketchy procedural maneuvers in order to overrule such an effort."

(WH) "Under normal ARIN policy, any legal entity which can justify its
request may receive number resources. Though normally companies or other
organizations, this does occasionally apply to individuals. AS 11875 for
example. 2009-1 restricts the transfer recipients to "organizations."
2008-6 retains ARIN's broader definition of eligible recipients."

(JG) "So far I have seen *NO* support for this policy. Zero.
Zip. If it goes forward anyway, it will be very clear that the ideas of
"consensus" and "community policy" are mere travesties, to be discarded
whenever the BOT finds that convenient."

(WH) "Should the board elect to promptly withdraw proposal 2009-1, let's
say by close of business Friday, it would be my pleasure to resubmit the
text of the proposal to the normal policy process and serve as the
proposal's author."

(SM) "Lack of interest in entities adopting IPv6 is not ARIN's
emergency. It's a business case issue, as in many orgs see no business
case for putting forth the effort to deploy IPv6 in their networks, not
an "emergency"."

(CB) "Emergency? I think so. But I don't think that the majority of the
networking community will choose to deal with this until it reaches
crisis state. By the time we reach crisis, the problem will be too big
to worry about pointing fingers. As usual in the US, those who were
responsible enough to deal with it before it became and emergency will
see no benefit since there will be some kind of either bailout, or
social acceptance of the crisis and the half-baked solutions that will
come with waiting until two weeks past the very last date to reasonable
address the issue."

(LH) "The sense of the Board is that a transfer policy is needed well
before IANA's last IPv4 allocation, to allow early transfers and ease
the demand for IPv4 numbers from ARIN. Allowing for the possibility
that demand might increase as IANA allocates its last IPv4 numbers, the
Board believes that there is insufficient time for another full policy
cycle. The policy in 2008-6 allowed the Board to activate it by
declaring an emergency, which the Board did. The policy had certain gaps
which, in the Board's opinion, allowed for exploitation. As noted in
the minutes of the February 6 meeting, the Board resolved to make
certain edits to the policy that had just been adopted. These edits
were out of order: according to ARIN's Policy Development Process, the
Board of Trustees may (in emergency circumstances) suspend a policy or
propose a policy, but may not edit the Number Resource Policy Manual
directly. Therefore, at its March 18, 2009 meeting, the Board rescinded
its action editing the policy, and proposed a new policy, which is
2009-1: Transfer Policy. The minutes of that meeting will be published
once Board members have reviewed them, according to the published
procedure."


Suggestions:

(MH) "Number resources are issued based on justified need to
organizations and not to individuals that represent those organizations.
Upon notification that a major negative event related to the
Corporations solvency [define these in definitions] has occurred, ARIN
will freeze all assigned provider independent "PI" address space,
ASN's, and affiliated resources deemed necessary to protect ARIN
assigned number resources and their disposition. Changes to these
resources during the negative event will be processed in a manner
consistent with ARIN policy and agreements in effect at the time of the
negative event".

(SL) "I heard a number of people express the opinion that we don't want
to set a permanent precedent allowing transfers of IPv6 (and ASN). Both
2008-2 and 2008-6 were very explicit that transfers were only being
allowed as a result of the extraordinary circumstance of IPv4
exhaustion, and that such transfers would not be allowed for any other
type of number resource. I believe it would be appropriate to restore
such a limitation to section 8.3 of 2009-1."

(WH) "The changed text in 8.2 implies that a transfer of resources will
not be permitted except as a result of a merger or acquisition. Does
this rule out any kind of transfer that was previously permitted? If so,
what?"

(WH) "The original use of the word "effecting" was correct. The
instrument(s) effecting the transfer of assets. You don't affect a
change, you effect a change. The use of the word "affecting" in 2009-1
is incorrect."

ppmlでは更に議論が進んでいます。

ARIN-PPML@Mar 30, 2009

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:05:39 -0500
From: "David Farmer"
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Is there an Emergency?
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <49D01AE3.21085.B9720F6@farmer.umn.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

I would like to motivate a discussion of the question "Is there
an Emergency?"

I have heard several people express the opinion that they don't
see an emergency. I would like to respectfully disagree with
that opinion.

In my opinion the crux of the emergency is IPv4 exhaustion
combined with the lack of IPv6 adoption, which means we are
going to hit the proverbial wall when it comes to functional IP
address availability. But when does this become an
emergency?

Maybe we can use a car accident as a metaphor; When does
a car accident start? When you hit the wall? When the
airbags deploy? When you fail to make the turn or hit the
breaks in time to prevent yourself from hitting the wall?

Using this metaphor, I propose; IANA free pool exhaustion is
equivalent to the car hitting the wall. The trigger set in 2009-2:
Depleted IPv4 Reserves, is the equivalent of the airbags going
off shortly after the car hits the wall. RIR and ISP free pool
exhaustion are equivalent to the passengers hitting the interior
of the car and the brain and internal organs colliding with the
skull and the rest of the body, receptively.

So when did the IPv4 car accident start, when did we hit the
point where we would inextricably hit the wall? I'm not exactly
sure, but I think most of us started realizing back in 2007 that
we were going to inextricably hit the wall. And today, to me
personally it is virtually unquestionable that will we are going to
hit the wall. We obviously haven't hit the wall just yet, but the
car is headed toward the wall to fast to stop or turn, the
accident must and will happen.

Further, it is possible we don't have as much time as we think
we do. We currently have approximately 500 Million IPv4
address in the IANA Free Pool. While current projections,
based on current usage rates, provide a little over two years to
exhaustion[1]. However, it is not difficult to imagine scenarios
where the IANA free pool could be exhausted much sooner
than that. For example, if mobile providers were to start
issuing IPv4 address to mobile hand sets it wouldn't be hard to
exhaust the IANA free pool in no time flat[2].

[1] http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html

[2]
http://newsroom.parksassociates.com/article_display.cfm?articl
e_id=5128

I'm not saying that will or even should happen, but it is by no
means impossible. Further, under current policies if the mobile
industry came to the RIRs for IPv4 addresses for hand set, the
RIRs would likely have to fulfill the requests, and exhaust the
IANA free pool in short order.

Therefore, at least in reference to IPv4, I believe there is a
valid Emergency.

So, I'm interested to hear other people's opinion on if there is
an emergency.

================================================
=======
David Farmer Email:
farmer@umn.edu


ARINの2009-1「IP移転」は緊急性のあるものか否か、という問いかけ。
緊急性のあるものだよ、という意見とIPv6の導入は緊急じゃないよね、という意見が見えて
います。以前あった意見としてはIP再割り当てのポリシーがあるのに移転を緊急で決める
必要ある？などのコメントがありました。

ARIN-PPML@Mar 27, 2009

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:25:56 -0500
From: Leo Bicknell
Subject: [arin-ppml] How hard is it to transition to IPv6?
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <20090327162556.GA57288@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/032509-google-ipv6-easy.html

At the IETF meeting there was a panel discussion on transitioing
to IPv6, at which Google gave their perspective. I know a lot of
folks have been looking for some more concrete information on how
hard the transition will be, and here's one companies's take on it.

I would like to applaud Google for both being out front and talking
about their experiences.

--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


色々IPv4移転やらなにやらで揉めているところにこのような質問が。
「IPv6への移行ってどんぐらい難しいの？」
原点回帰させるかのような議論の持っていきかたです。
そのメールに対して各機器においてIPv6では実現できていない機能などを説明するメールが
返信として続々と入っています。

ARIN-ppml@Mar 26, 2009

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:13:18 -0500
From: "Kevin Kargel"
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy (Using
theEmergency PDP)
To: "PPML ppml"
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF23@mail>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of John Curran
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 6:16 PM
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy (Using
> theEmergency PDP)
>
> All -
>
> As noted in Daniel's message, the material change made to the
> transfer policy by the ARIN Board is removal of the 3 year
> sunset clause. It was the consensus of the Board that this did
> not materially improve the usefulness of the 2008-6, created
> uncertainty for the community, and most importantly represented
> a dangerous precedent of time-based expirations of policy clauses.
>
> At present, the Board has one tool at its disposal for timely
> modification of policy language, and that is use of the emergency
> policy process. The Board has already indicated the urgent need
> for a transfer policy and due to the timeliness of the situation,

What urgent need for a transfer policy? Why does this keep getting restated
as though it is established fact. I have not seen a community consensus
that there is a need for a transfer policy. There are a few vocal
individuals that voice the need for a transfer policy until some accept it
as fact.

There is no need for a transfer policy. We have a policy for reassignment
of IP blocks. We do not need a new policy unless the goal is to make profit
from the transfer.

Kevin


既にIPv4再アサイン規定があるのに急いでIP移転ポリシーを決めるのはどうして？
というコメント。
どうもARIN ACは急いで決めたがっているように(外野からは)見受けられる。
さらに。


Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lee Howard
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy (Using
the Emergency PDP)
To: Leo Bicknell , arin-ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <829182.10675.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii



As a Board member, I have some insight into the process by which the
emergency draft policy was submitted to the community. However, I am
not willing to discuss the Board's deliberations without checking with my
fellow Board members; I'm afraid of mischaracterizing their positions. I
do have my own opinions, which I will share, but I have an open mind,
and it can be changed by well-reasoned argument or correction of my
faulty memory.

The Board tries to stay out of policy matters, having created the Advisory
Council for that purpose. Generally I am reluctant to advocate for or
against potential policies. In this case, there's a policy gap, where
numbers could be better allocated as needed, per ARIN's mission.


ARIN Boardからも強烈な懸念が。

ARIN-ppml@Mar 24, 2009

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:46:05 -0600
From: Matthew Wilder
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-2: Depleted IPv4 reserves
To: Ron Cleven , ARIN PPML
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


Ron wrote:
> Stephen's comments are spot on. The large ISP's are the very ones who
> have both the resources and clout to make the IPv6 transition happen.
> If they are unwilling or unable to do so, what does that say about the
> viability of ever making that transition? Mr. Wilder doth protest too
> much.

My explicit role in my organization is to ensure adequate IP Addressing to support service growth and new service introduction. I believe without a doubt that the only way I will be successful in that mandate is to position IPv6 as the vehicle so that the IP Addresses are there.

My organization is taking the steps necessary to get that transition happening, so we are not unwilling. I can tell you that with certain services, we might well be unable to transition before IPv4 exhaust hits, but my focus is to transition the high growth services. I want to make sure that the other services which may take longer to transition have the IP Addresses available, as I am sure every other admin POC out there is trying to ensure.

I don't protest for the sake of demanding unfair privileges on the behalf of large ISPs. I protest a policy that says everyone can have their needs completely met except for one group, which can't even have a reasonable fraction of their need met.

Respectfully,
Matthew Wilder

ARIN地域でもIP移転の議論は喧々諤々。
この地域はInternetに初期から参加している企業が多く、そういう企業は
IPv4アドレスを巨大ブロックで保有していることが多い。それゆえ、IPv4枯渇にも
関心が薄かった。
今になって猛烈な勢いで議論している。それはやはり豊富に持っているIPv4を資産化
する為なのか、と邪推してしまう。
あとはスタートアップ企業の設立コストの上昇にも跳ね返るか。

ARIN-PPML@Mar 20, 2009

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:07:09 -0700
From: Scott Leibrand
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Sunset 2008-6 on schedule
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <49C3DB4D.8030605@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Ted,

I don't believe that the Board has yet released the record of their
(very recent) emergency policy action subsequent to adopting 2008-6. We
should see something released on that in the near future, and per the
PDP, will be discussing the action on PPML and at the San Antonio Public
Policy Meeting.

-Scott (speaking solely for myself, and not yet expressing any opinion
on any action taken or policy proposed on this subject)

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> I fully support this.
>
> The disregarding of the "For a period of 3 years from policy implementation"
> statement in the policy proposal was NOT mentioned AT ALL in the actual
> records of the policy proposal itself:
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_6.html
>
> For THIS REASON ALONE setting aside ALL OTHER discussion I would be
> in favor of Owen's proposal.
>
> The COMPLETE implementation of ANY policy is a sacred trust, and while
> I might condone the ARIN board's actions of removing the sunset clause
> IF AN EXPLANATION WAS SUPPLIED IN THE POLICY RECORD the fact that one
> WAS NOT and NO mention of this appears in the record is, in my opinion,
> far, far worse than the thwarting the will of the community.
>
> It is one thing for ARIN to thwart the will of the community for reasons
> they feel are good and have a logical basis (changed premises, etc.) It is
> ENTIRELY DIFFERENT for them to do so and SWEEP IT UNDER THE RUG by NOT
> documenting it in the proposal.
>
> So, are we going to have to now, check and verify every accepted proposal
> against the actual NRPM itself to make sure the board didn't just
> "forget" to include something it didn't like?
>
> Fagh!
>
> Ted
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net
>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net] On Behalf Of Member Services
>> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:30 AM
>> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Sunset 2008-6 on schedule
>>
>> ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it
>> to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with
>> Policy Development Process.
>>
>> This proposal is in the first stage of the Policy Development Process.
>> ARIN staff will perform the Clarity and Understanding step.
>> Staff does not evaluate the proposal at this time, their goal
>> is to make sure that they understand the proposal and believe
>> the community will as well.
>> Staff will report their results to the ARIN Advisory Council
>> (AC) within 10 days.
>>
>> The AC will review the proposal at their next regularly
>> scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly
>> scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may
>> be extended to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting).
>> The AC will decide how to utilize the proposal and announce
>> the decision to the PPML.
>>
>> In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on the
>> proposal on the PPML, particularly their support or
>> non-support and the reasoning behind their opinion. Such
>> participation contributes to a thorough vetting and provides
>> important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
>>
>> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
>> http://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>>
>> Mailing list subscription information can be found at:
>> http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Member Services
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>
>>
>> ## * ##
>>
>>
>> Policy Proposal Name: Sunset 2008-6 on schedule
>>
>> Proposal Originator: Owen DeLong
>>
>> Proposal Version: 1.0
>>
>> Date: 19 March 2009
>>
>> Proposal type: delete
>>
>> Policy term: permanent
>>
>> Policy statement:
>>
>> Effective March 31, 2012, the changes made to the NRPM by
>> policy 2008-6 are to be deleted.
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> Part of the policy that the community developed consensus for
>> in 2008-6 included a sunset clause. The ARIN Board in an
>> unprecedented action chose to discard this clause while
>> approving the remainder of the policy.
>>
>> This proposal is intended to restore the will of the
>> community and ensure that this policy remains temporary as intended.
>>
>> Timetable for implementation: March 31, 2012
>>

各RIRで今熱心に議論されているのがIPv4アドレスブロックの移転について。
この2008-6は特定用途に関する緊急IPv4アドレス移転ポリシー。
しかしPDP(PolicyDevelopmentProccess)の性質上、多少時間が掛かるので
緊急性にどれだけ対応できるのか？ということで今後も注意深く見守る必要があるとの意見。

各RIRとも強制力の無いポリシーで先行者利益によって得たアドレスをいかに回収するかという
難題を抱えている。

ARIN-ppml@Jan 8, 2009

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:34:55 -0600
From: "David Farmer"
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Google Embraces IPv6
To: ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <4965C8BF.23235.35CFDF0@farmer.umn.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Back in November, Google had enabled IPv6 for the IETF meeting network.
It worked great!!! Good to see they are making this public.

On 8 Jan 2009 Leo Bicknell wrote:

>
> Google has now provided a public page on their IPv6 efforts:
>
> http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/
>
> It's nice to see something from the "Big Content" side of the world.
>
> --
> Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440

ARINのppmlはいつも喧々諤々とポリシーについて議論しているのですが、
たまに上記のようなプロモーションのような、でもIPv6移行・普及に関する話が
出てくる。

本題の議論は皆さん長文なのでなかなか細かいところまで追いきれませんが頑張って追っていきます。