I think any legitimate use of IPv4 addresses is no more or less worthy than any other. I see no reason to elevate theoretical new entrants to the point of depriving existing legitimate users. > > Oh yes, those who have already can never make a better usage of what they > already have and really justify for more IP addresses (that don't exist) in > detriment of newcomers ?
As the old saying goes… a bird in the hand. Existing users have a track record and a current documented need if they are applying for additional addresses. New entrants may or may not exist at some point in the future and are 100% speculation at this time. I see no reason to advantage speculative purposes over documented need. Who is being vague now? > There are countless ways to always better use of what one already has and it > sounds very unreasonable to continue assigning more addresses to these > organizations in times of exahustion. Need to balance things correctly, face > reality and be reasonable given the current scenario. This is purely your opinion. In my opinion, you shouldn’t get to make that decision on behalf of existing organizations and tell them how to run their networks. >> IPv4 is an obsolete technology. Preserving an IPv4 free pool against >> legitimate demand to facilitate latecomers and laggards failure to deploy >> IPv6 is simply not in the overall best interests of the internet. > > > Well, that's another discussion. Newcomers don't have any and cannot do > anything without a minimal IPv4 even if they prefectly deploy IPv6. Not true. They can do many things without v4. What they can’t do is communicate with sites that have been too lazy or inattentive to deploy IPv6. Guess what… the only thing that’s going to get many of those sites to deploy IPv6 is when they are faced with a world where they need to communicate with those new entrants that have no IPv4. Will that be painful and disruptive in the short run? You bet. Horribly so. But we’ve frittered away more than 20 years encouraging graceful transition with only about 50% uptake to show for it. The alternative is to extend and increase everyone’s pain for many many more years of transition in limbo. That’s not the common good IMHO. > Trying to force things only towards IPv6 ignoring the practical side sounds > more like ideology. Policy is all about balancing ideology and pragmatism. However, as I see it, it’s a 100% pragmatic reality that the longer we prolong the ability to remain addicted to IPv4, the more we enable these organizations that have failed to deploy IPv6 to externalize the costs of their failure onto the rest of us. > > That's a theory you have without knowing ARIN tools and possibilities. No, it’s a statement of fact based on actual knowledge and experience. > Again, it doesn't matter much the theoretical possibilities. There will > always be unlimited. What matters most is to have as a policy what is > correct, fair and in the interest of community. Yes, but as I have repeatedly said, what you propose is bad policy. The potential for abuse is merely icing on the toxic cake. > > It is the interest of community that more organizarions and consequently > users can connect to the Internet, develop new business and make up new > technology and it is fair to think to make things to keep fitting newcomers > to this industry. The interest of the community is the demise of IPv4 as the lingua Franca and the end of allowing organizations that fail to deploy IPv6 to continue externalizing the cost of their failure onto the rest of us. Owen
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
