RE: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
At 23:34 07/03/03, Ray Plzak wrote:
>Thank you for your message. One thing to bear in mind is that IPv4 will never "run out" or "be exhausted". What will happen is that the large IANA reserve will be depleted and that consequently RIRs will no longer be able to allocate IPv4 in the same manner as they do currently. The fact is that the RIRs will always have some IPv4 space, just not enough to meet the allocation demand that they currently have, nor even the minimum allocation size. Policy work in this area should be done in such a manner to meet the challenge of the change in the IPv4 allocation environment. The environment will change but it will not go away.
OK.
If ARIN can make announcement to continue allocating IPv4 forever or for long time,
LIRs would be happier.
Then, I would like to hear how you can achieve the above under what kind of policy.
It should be registries' responsibility to allow and help LIRs to make future plans such as
transiting to IPv6, staying IPv4 or whatever.
Your comments as the ARIN president, unless it accompanys any more concrete idea,
might mislead LIRs that they will continue to be able to rely on IPv4 only.
>If the RIRs stop allocating IPv4 address space then it will be allocated in some other manner. This will not be good for the Internet.
Agree.
Regards,
Takashi Arano
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: MAEMURA Akinori [mailto:maem at nic dot ad dot jp]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:44 AM
>> To: plzak at arin dot net; arano at inetcore dot com; bob at brockhurst dot co dot nz
>> Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net; takashi at arano dot jp
>> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
>>
>> Thanks Ray.
>> I miss you here in Bali by the way.
>>
>> I think Paul will introduce your comment in front of APNIC
>> community.
>>
>> I agree that Legal implication should be carefully revisited.
>>
>> I think the Internet Registries who distribute the IP number
>> resource cannot be helped to comply to the run-out of our
>> resource. I would like to have your ider if you had a
>> diffent perspective on this idea.
>>
>> I think the legal implication with any address policy action
>> should be resolved by the Registries. Even if the community
>> were advised of such a legal risk, the community at most can
>> take it into account in the framework of their own businesses,
>> but not of Registries. (Correct me if you think I am in a wrong
>> shape.)
>>
>> The proposer team would really love to find a good solution to
>> confront this forthcoming epoch. We do need your cooperation
>> and we are flexible enough to include any of your inputs
>> regardless technically or at large, in order to achieve OUR
>> goal.
>>
>> Thank you, and keep in touch on this issue.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -----
>> MAEMURA Akinori General Manager, IP Department
>> JPNIC - Japan Network Information Center maem at nic dot ad dot jp
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In message <D7E170CA59F2F24EA64244745D01E75904E04D5C@ex.arin.net>
>> "RE: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal"
>> "Ray Plzak <plzak at arin dot net>" wrote:
>>
>> | This policy proposal has now been introduced into the ARIN region.
>> | I will not speak to the merits of this proposal, but will ask the
>> | question that the ARIN General Counsel is now taking up: What is
>> | the liability exposure to ARIN if this policy is adopted? What are
>> | the anti-trust implications if this is adopted by ARIN? Additionally,
>> | the attorneys of all the RIRs should consider what is the anti-trust
>> | implication of this proposal if adopted globally? I do not intend
>> | for this to start a legal discussion on this list by a bunch of
>> people
>> | who are not attorneys but rather to say that this proposal like any
>> | other proposal can have consequences that the authors of the proposal
>> | do not intend. In the case of the anti-trust implications, this could
>> | be extremely harmful to any RIR that adopts it, and therefore this
>> | should be carefully scrutinized by competent attorneys before the
>> | community adopts it.
>> |
>> | By this message, I ask Paul Wilson to introduce my comments into the
>> | discussion of this policy at the APNIC meeting.
>> |
>> | Ray
>> |
>> | > -----Original Message-----
>> | > From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [<mailto:sig-policy->mailto:sig-policy-
><mailto:sig-policy->> | > bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Takashi Arano
>> | > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:55 AM
>> | > To: Robert Gray
>> | > Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net; Takashi Arano; Takashi Arano
>> | > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
>> | >
>> | > Hi Robert,
>> | >
>> | > At 04:51 07/02/28, Robert Gray wrote:
>> | > >>IPv4 exhaustion gives negative impact, more or less.
>> | > >>The issue here is how to reduce the pain. As Randy said, choice
>> of
>> | > short sharp pain or long-term pain well describes this issue.
>> | > >
>> | > >Arano-san
>> | > >
>> | > >I'm not sure that the choice is this simple.
>> | > >
>> | > >The community needs to promote a progressive global deployment of
>> IPv6
>> | > and this needs to start very soon otherwise there will be no
>> ability to
>> | > transition when the time (however defined) comes.
>> | > >
>> | > >I do not think that the imposition of arbitrary exhaustion dates
>> will
>> | > of itself be sufficient to make this happen.
>> | >
>> | > Our intention is not to impose something.
>> | > This is intended to guarantee LIRs to get IPv4 addresses by the
>> | > specific date pre-announced.
>> | > As a result, x-date would be shorten just by one a few months.
>> | > We believe it is useful and necessary for LIR/ISP's planning
>> division.
>> | >
>> | > >>Anyway, time proceeds. We have to confront this issue seriously
>> | > >>and as soon as possible.
>> | > >
>> | > >Here we agree 100%
>> | > >
>> | > >The difference in approach seems to be that some of us would like
>> to
>> | > see more action taken sooner to specifically promote IPv6
>> deployment
>> | > rather than concentrating solely on what happens until x-date
>> | >
>> | > Yes, on different hats of mine, the IPv6 forum and Asia Pacific
>> IPv6
>> | > Task Force
>> | > are going to promote IPv6 and provide some guidelines for ISPs more
>> | > seriously than ever.
>> | >
>> | > Regards,
>> | > Takashi Arano
>> | >
>> | > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>> | > *
>> | > _______________________________________________
>> | > sig-policy mailing list
>> | > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
>> | > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>> |
>> | * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>> *
>> | _______________________________________________
>> | sig-policy mailing list
>> | sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
>> | http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>> |
>> |
---------------------------------------------------------
荒野高志 (株)インテック・ネットコア
Email: arano at inetcore dot com Phone: 03-5665-5069
IPv6無料情報提供サイト: http://entne.jp/ （Windows Vista抽選でプレゼント、3/31まで）
個人ブログ: http://blog.goo.ne.jp/v6arano/ ;
---------------------------------------------------------