> On 9 May 2016, at 15:16, Arash Naderpour <arash_...@parsun.com> wrote: > > >> Tough. We’re out of IPv4. We’re all struggling due to a lack of IPv4 >> resources. Everyone just has to make the best of it with whatever they have >> now. Anyone >planning to grow their network using IPv4 simply cannot base >> their plans on repeatedly going to >the NCC and asking for more. It’s that >> simple. > > No, not everyone struggling due to lack of IPv4. There is a market and some > are selling their IPv4 to others. Are they struggling??
I don’t know. You’d need to ask the ones who are selling. I imagine some might be off-loading surplus IPv4 space because they’ve switched to IPv6 or are well down that path. FWIW the last time I looked, it was mostly legacy space which was changing hands. That’s not subject to RIR policies. Not that this matters. Yes, of course some LIRs will have extra IPv4 addresses. That’s largely an accident of history. The fact they benefited from the more liberal RIR policies from N years ago is no reason to tear up the current policy. Amongst other things, the current policy aims to share the pain of IPv4 run-out roughly equally between all LIRs. Supporters of this proposal appear want to avoid some of that pain for themselves (or delay it for a while) at the expense of others. That’s not fair, reasonable or balanced. >> Let’s suppose 2015-05 is adopted. We quickly burn through the remaining IPv4 >> pool because some LIRs continue to grow their IPv4 networks instead of >> coming to terms with the end of IPv4. > > That assumption is not necessary valid Nonsense. Current policy says every LIR gets exactly one /22. 2015-05 says an LIR can get more than that and keep on coming back for even more. This means the pool of IPv4 at the NCC will be depleted at a faster rate than it would under the current policy. 2015-05 even says this. > Can you please define first what you mean from "Quickly burn"? and how this > policy can do that? The usual dictionary definition of “quickly burn” should be clear enough. If not, replace “burn” with “squander”, “deplete”, “exhaust”, “fritter away”, “use up”, etc. Current policy says every LIR gets exactly one /22. 2015-05 says an LIR can get more than that and keep on coming back for even more. This means the pool of IPv4 at the NCC will be depleted at a faster rate than it would under the current policy. 2015-05 even says this. How often do I need to repeat this? Suppose a boat has a leak below the waterline. What happens if you put another hole in the hull? Will it sink earlier or later than if it had just one hole? >>> We need a balance between resource conservation and fair treatment > >> IMO the existing policy already achieves that. 2015-5, if adopted, does not. > > Really? How 2015-05 make it unbalanced? This has already been explained many times. The proposal actually says so itself. I quote: "Further allocations will speed up the depletion of the free pool.” A policy proposal which will speed up the depletion of the free pool BY DESIGN is deeply flawed and cannot hope to be either fair or balanced. The balance in this proposal is about as “fair and balanced” as Fox News. 2015-05 aims to encourage IPv4 exhaustion and is the very antithesis of resource conservation. Now let’s assume we agree that IPv4 exhaustion is a Good Thing. Who benefits from that policy? And are the benefits worth it? Well, the LIRs who’d gain from 2015-05 are the ones who can’t/won’t do anything about IPv4 exhaustion until it’s all gone. And even then, they’d only be able to keep going with those flawed models for a little longer than they would with the current policy. IMO that’s not in the best interests of the community as a whole. It doesn’t result in an acceptable trade-off which justifies burning through the last dregs of IPv4. 2015-05 would allow some LIRs to keep on using IPv4 when they should have faced up to the reality of IPv4 exhaustion. That may well be to their short-term advantage. But it doesn’t change the outcome. It just brings forward the date when the NCC runs out of IPv4. That's not fair for future entrants. It’s not fair to the LIRs who have already incurred the costs and expense of deploying NAT or IPv6 or whatever because “more IPv4” was no longer an option. They could have deferred or not had those hassles if there was a chance of getting more than a final /22. It’s rather ironic that supporters of 2015-05 complain that they’re at a disadvantage to the LIRs who enjoyed the more liberal allocations of the past when they want to introduce a more liberal address allocation policy now which will disadvantage future entrants. Ho hum.
