[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

[Owen DeLong]

> On Aug 10, 2017, at 04:49 , Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 9 Aug 2017, at 22:17, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Aug 4, 2017, at 08:49 , Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com <mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Owen, Hi Community , see in lines
>>> 
>>> Le 31 juil. 2017 17:54, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> a écrit :
>>> >>>> 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.
>>> >>>>
>>> ...
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > As an example: There is a residential ISP in South Africa who has over 500 IPv4 prefixes. How many IPv6 prefixes do they announce? None. ZERO. You are saying that this operator should be allowed as much more IPv4 space as they can get, until it runs out, and tough luck to the new IPv6 operator down the line who needs IPv4 to connect to the legacy Internet. I'm sorry, I can not, and won't support the continued distribution of IPv4 resources to existing operators to maintain the IPv4 status quo.
>>> 
>>> Not at all… If you want to write a policy that resolves this issue without the other baggage and problems present in this policy, I would support a clean policy designed to address that issue and make space available to ANYONE specifically for IPv6 to IPv4 connectivity/transition. In fact, I wrote such a policy in the ARIN region years ago and it is now NRPM section 4.10 in the ARIN region.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> 
>>> I don't really know how things work in ARIN region, but the proposal which led to section 4.10 of ARIN NRPM was authored by Alain Durand.
>>> 
>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_5.html <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_5.html>
>>> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-June/011277.html <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-June/011277.html>
>> Indeed, 4.10 is actually the result of a merger of multiple proposals, one of which was written by Alain and one of which I authored. I apologize for my misstatement as compared to the record.
>> 
>> Owen
> 
> 
> You were grandstanding to buttress your point so I am not convinced.   In these days of alternative facts, it is always good to show some evidence.  
> 
> Which proposal did you author that led to NRPM 4.10?  Please provide a link.  It might help to understand why it is good to reserve for ARIN but not for AfrINIC.
> 
> Omo

Unfortunately, my memories of 9 years ago aren’t as crystal clear as I might hope (Alain’s proposal was numbered 2008-5 which later became 4.10) and I don’t find it in the proposal archives. As such, I can only assume that my text got merged with Alain’s proposal prior to being formalized as an ARIN policy proposal. Back then, the ARIN community was a little less formalized than things are now and some contributions and combinations of ideas didn’t get recorded as exactly as they do now. You are welcome to review the ARIN PPML archives of the time and you will see my various public contributions regarding this policy.

I don’t think I was grandstanding, but call it what you want. I really don’t think authorship bolsters my position any more than having supported the policy would in this case, so if it helps you to accept my point, please consider me as having been a supporter of the policy at the time (which is well established in the record) rather than a contributing author and be done with the matter.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170810/2c93a102/attachment-0001.html>