[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 29, 2017, at 10:05 , Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jul 28, 2017, at 04:18 , Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 27, 2017, at 22:45 , Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Frankly, IMHO, the preservation of IPv4 is strictly a way of inflicting
>>>>>> additional cost and pain on the majority of the internet. Unfortunately,
>>>>>> much like toxic polluters of the 70s and 80s, most of the cost and pain is
>>>>>> inflicted on those who are ready for IPv6 rather than those who remain
>>>>>> unprepared for that future. The good news is that if the current adoption
>>>>>> rates continue, the holdouts that haven’t implemented IPv6 will become
>>>>>> mostly irrelevant relatively soon and when the rest of us start turning off
>>>>>> IPv4, they will be the ones left out in the cold wondering what happened
>>>>>> instead of inflicting costs and pain on the rest of us.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The sooner the internet moves on from its unhealthy IPv4 addiction the
>>>>>> better. I’m pretty sure you know this as well as I do, despite all of your
>>>>>> apparent protestations to the contrary.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Our region is still a young and growing region relative to yours.
>>>> 
>>>> Like it or not, Jackson, I’m part of this region, too. Nonetheless,
>>>> 
>>>>> - IPv6 is the end. But IPv4 is still a means to the end.
>>>> 
>>>> No… IPv4 is a temporary means of survival and is to some extent the status quo. Nothing more.
>>> 
>>> It can be looked at as a temporary means of survival and that very
>>> premise makes it the means to the IPv6 end. Because the internet still
>>> operates mostly on IPv4 and an IPv6 only island cannot be reached to
>>> by an IPv4 only island unless there a mechanism to make the two
>>> co-exist has been applied. So semantics aside we seem to agree in
>>> principle.
>> 
>> No, the IPv6 end can be achieved without any IPv4 at all if one desires to do so.
> 
> Yes. And then be out of business because pretty much nobody can access
> those IPv6 only services.

You’re arguing the business case for IPv4. I’m arguing IPv4 is a separate protocol
from IPv6 and that IPv4 isn’t a means to the IPv6 end as you originally stated.
I never denied there was a business case for IPv4 currently.

>> IPv4 doesn’t do anything to help you deploy IPv6.
> 
> Yes. If you want to be an island.

No… Whatever you do with IPv4 is independent of what you do with IPv6 except that in
most cases, it is convenient to do them in parallel for the time being.

Deploying IPv6 and IPv4 together doesn’t make you an island. Deploying either one alone
makes you an island at some point. Today, IPv6 looks more island-like than IPv4, but
that balance is shifting rapidly in the other direction and the tipping point is not
as far away as many seem to think.

Nonetheless, a “means to an end” means that the means in question somehow facilitates
your arrival at said end. IPv4 facilitates your continued participation in the legacy
internet which currently constitutes the majority of eyeballs and services. It does
nothing to facilitate your participation in the IPv6 internet. Only deployment of IPv6
will facilitate that end.

>> Therefore, IPv4 is not an means to the IPv6 end. IPv4 is a means to communicate
>> with the legacy internet. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> And this legacy internet is where the customers and the money is.

To some extent, today, that is true. However, there is actually quite a bit of money and
there are quite a few customers that are demanding IPv6 and even more that are demanding
dual stack.

The balance is shifting rapidly in the direction of IPv6.

>>>>> - If IPv6 were the absolute solution we would not have a booming a
>>>>> billion dollar IPv4 market.
>>>> 
>>>> That’s the same kind of logic currently being used by the climate change deniers.
>>>> 
>>>> In the 1960s and 1970s, in my other region, the argument was that if dumping toxic chemicals
>>>> into waterways was a real problem, it wouldn’t be so cheap to do so. Fortunately, the
>>>> EPA was created and huge fines were put in place and the superfund was created to try and
>>>> shift some of the costs of these toxic waste dumpings back on to the sources instead of
>>>> the down-stream victims.
>>> 
>>> I don't think we should parade IPv4 at the same level as toxic and
>>> hazardous waste.
>> 
>> I’m not. I’m parading the use of IPv4 combined with the failure to implement IPv6
>> at a similar level because it has the same kind of cost-shifting effect.
>> 
>>> But using your analogy, please help me understand how the two liken,
>>> who is dumping what on who, and which side is facing any costs as a
>>> result.
>> 
>> By failing to implement IPv6 and continuing to operate IPv4 only, an organization is
>> forcing everyone else that wants to communicate with them to continue to maintain and
>> in some cases expand their own IPv4 infrastructure at an ever increasing cost, much the
>> way that those dumping toxic waste were saving money by not paying for hazmat disposal
>> while shifting costs on to the downstream public in the form of medical bills, cleanup
>> costs, etc.
>> 
>> Do you understand now?
> 
> The organization selling services over IPv4 does so due to market
> dynamics of demand and supply. If I dont make money serving products
> on IPv6 those products will be served over IPv4. Nobody is forcing
> anyone. It is just the situation.

This is a wonderful logical fallacy.

If you make your products/services available over IPv4 and IPv6, then eyeball providers
that serve your customers can deploy either or both protocols as they see fit and there
is no cost shifting.

If you make your products/services available over IPv4 only, then eyeball providers
that serve your customers must choose between the added costs of maintaining an IPv4
network for those customers, or the opportunity cost of losing those customers. In
either case, you have shifted a cost burden on to those eyeball providers.

The corollary toxic polluter argument for your statement above is “nobody forced those
residents to live downstream of where we dumped the waste, it’s just the situation.”

>>>>> - As the growing region transits to IPv6 there will still be need for
>>>>> IPv4 meantime. If our IPv4 is not well and meticulously managed during
>>>>> this period it will cost our operators more to buy from the market as
>>>>> AfriNIC runs out completely.
>>>> 
>>>> I actually agree with you here. That’s why I oppose the terrible mismanagement
>>>> proposed in the soft landing BIS proposal which would deprive operators of networks
>>>> in the region of the addresses they need in the present in order to protect imaginary
>>>> future operators who may never materialize.
>>> 
>>> OK, if you opt to think in binary, you will be right. But you of
>>> course know that this is not how planning and forecasting works. The
>>> region is growing. AfriNIC member numbers are increasing year on year
>>> and most are small players. And when you look at those numbers in each
>>> country and other metrics like internet penetration rates per country
>>> to mention but a few, you know that the forecasts are based on facts.
>>> If dinner was served at your table and you got home before your kids,
>>> would you eat all of it because they are not yet home?
>> 
>> That’s not a valid analogy here and you known it. These speculative future
>> startups that are in your forecast aren’t my children. They’re other customers
>> going to the same store that I am going to.
>> Let’s use a better analogy… This is more like a store being operated in a time of shortage.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> Let’s use eggs for the example.
>> 
>> As a store owner, you know that there is a looming shortage of eggs because of some horrible
>> disease that has afflicted all of the local chickens and egg production is less than 1/4 of
>> normal.
>> 
>> Would you limit the number of cartons of eggs each customer can buy and prohibit customers from
>> getting in line again if they need more eggs?
> 
> It depends on the community your shop is in and the people you are
> serving. Your analogy works in an environment that is purely
> commercial. AfriNIC is not in the business of selling commodities to
> the highest bidder. If this was the case, USA, Russia, China etc would
> buy all addresses since 2005 and RIRs would close shop.

Fair enough… There is no ideal analogy.

Hopefully my point isn’t completely lost in your picking apart the analogy.

>> Would you tell the commercial bakery down the street
>> that you will not sell them 12 dozen eggs because you might have families coming in tomorrow that
>> might need eggs?
> 
> YES!!!!! In the kind of space RIRs serve and operate in.

Interesting, so in order to have eggs for the families in case they need it in a month, you will deprive
them of the breads and cakes they want today. An interesting approach to resource management, to be sure.

>> No, you’re going to pocket the cash as fast as you can and sell the eggs to whoever wants to buy
>> them.
> 
> This is not the model behind RIRs.
> Your analogy is out of place, does not apply.
> RIRs are not for profit.

Sure, but pocketing the cash was not supposed to be literal. The point is that even for an RIR, a bird in the
hand is worth two in the bush. If you have people who need addresses for real customers today, then blocking
them in order to still be able to provide addresses for a competitor that may (or may not) come along in the
future in order to serve those customers strikes me as absurd, unfair, and outright negligent management of
the space.

> 
>> Obviously this is still a flawed analogy in that we do actually place some limits and only allow
>> each person to buy the eggs that they can show they actually intend to use and need.
> 
> Good you have now applied the reasoning that is relevant to the discussion.

Sure, but this proposal seeks to extend that limitation beyond what they need to now limiting them to some
tiny fraction of what they need in order to protect the baker’s competitors that don’t even exist yet and
may never exist.

>>>> Forcing present operators to pay higher rates in the transfer market because they cannot
>>>> get the addresses they need in order to preserve inventory for operators that don’t actually
>>>> exist is nonsensical and quite far from anything I would consider to be “meticulous management”
>>> 
>>> It is also a bit nonsensical to pretend that there will be no new
>>> operators. This is oblivion at its best. The continent still has many,
>>> many businesses (and other projects such as schools, community
>>> networks etc) that are upcoming within this transition phase that will
>>> NOT afford IPs from the transfer market and they need to be catered
>>> for. Of course an IPv6 only option will not be their solution as you
>>> are aware.
>> 
>> I am not pretending there will be no new operators. I am saying that the protection
>> of new operators which may or may not come into being (surely some will, but can you
>> guarantee it will be enough to consume the amount of address space this policy proposes
>> to set aside for them? Didn’t think so) at the expense of existing operators. Let the
>> new operators and the existing operators compete for the addresses on a level first come
>> first served playing field. When the address space is gone, it is gone. C’est la vie.
>> 
>>>>> - A mechanism to put in place a carefully managed runout which ensures
>>>>> fair allocation specifically for a region like Africa that has many
>>>>> late business and startups is very critical for us.
>>>> 
>>>> If I were to see such a proposal, I would support it. The proposal that is the subject
>>>> of this thread is pretty far from that.
>>> 
>>> It does to some extent Owen. It applies limitations to slow down
>>> consumption rates. Your only strong argument is that those operators
>>> are imaginary, which you very well know us a flawed argument because
>>> it defeats the very existence of the concept of planning and
>>> forecasting.
>> 
>> But these limitations don’t reduce need, they only reduce consumption. They create an
>> artificial shortage early in order to prolong the duration of the real shortage later.
> 
> There is no artificial shortage being created.
> 
> The shortage is already here.

Nope. The shortage isn’t here until the RIR starts denying addresses to people who have justified them.
To date, I don’t believe AfriNIC has done so. Even if they have, the mechanism by which they have done so
must, by definition, be an artificial shortage because there is no possibility of a request in excess of
the current free pool as it stands under policy.

>> That’s not carefully managing runout, that’s screwing the entire community to protect
>> a small part of the community that doesn’t even exist yet and may never exist.
> 
> Although our discussion has been centered around the needs of upcoming
> businesses, there are also those existing businesses that are still
> needing a piece of that resource at a point in future. You let the
> greedy ones grab all.

You keep saying “I let the greedy ones grab all” as if the providers obtaining space today don’t have
legitimate customers behind that space. I realize you can point to examples of abuse where this may be
true and I would support a policy aimed at stopping such abuse. However, that’s not what this policy does.
This policy penalizes all current operators, whether they are greedy and abusing policy today or not.

>> I’m not saying that there will be no new operators. I’m saying that you don’t know how
>> long the space will last under the limitations proposed and that you can only implement
>> those limitations if you prevent people who actually need addresses today from getting
>> them.
> 
> When a scarcity presents itself, you cannot hide your head in the sand
> and pretend it is not there.
> The internet now is a basic human need to a large extent just like
> water. Rationing is the only way to manage a scarce but needed
> resource that must be consumed by everyone. Unless you think some
> people or communities do not deserve to be connected.

I do not think that rationing will change the number of communities that get connected. I think that rationing
will, at best, delay the time said communities become connected. At worst, it may well increase the number of
communities which never get connected.

Owen