If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space would ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money.
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Kevin Stange <ke...@steadfast.net> wrote: > On 04/08/2010 10:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote: > >> Legacy holders have been holding parts (possibly more than they would > >> be able to justify from an RIR) of a finite global shared resource > >> without sharing in the costs associated, and it's unfair to _them_ > >> that they're not _entitled_ to do the same in the IPv6 space? > > > > When ARIN's costs are largely legal costs to go "enforcing" v4 policy > > and a bureaucracy to go through all the policy and paperwork? The > > finiteness of the resource is irrelevant; it does not cost ARIN any > > more or less to do its task in the v4 arena. There is a cost to the > > global Internet for v4 depletion, yes, but ARIN is not paying any of > > us for forwarding table entries or forced use of NAT due to lack of > > space, so to imply that ARIN's expenses are in any way related to the > > finiteness of the resource is a laughable argument (you're 8 days > > late). > > > > It would be better to dismantle the current ARIN v6 framework and do > > a separate v6 RIR. In v6, there's an extremely limited need to go > > battling things in court, one could reduce expenses simply by giving > > the benefit of the doubt and avoiding stuff like Kremen entirely. In > > the old days, nearly anyone could request -and receive- a Class C or > > even Class B with very little more than some handwaving. The main > > reason to tighten that up was depletion; with IPv6, it isn't clear > > that the allocation function needs to be any more complex than what > > used to exist, especially for organizations already holding v4 > > resources. > > > > So, my challenges to you: > > > > 1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6 > > numbering resources, > > > > 2) Tell me why something like the old pre-depletion pre-ARIN model > > of InterNIC and just handing out prefixes with substantially less > > paper-pushing wouldn't result in a cheaper-to-run RIR. > > Just because the benefit of being cautious isn't clear doesn't mean we > should simply throw caution to the wind entirely and go back to the "old > ways." It seems clear to many now that a lot of the legacy allocations, > /8's in particular were issued in a way that has left IPv4 inefficiently > allocated and with lack of any agreements by the resource holders to > have any responsibility to do anything about it. > > If we just eliminated the RIRs and agreements governing terms of access > to v6 allocations, IF later, we find a problem with the process and > start to run out of space, we end up in the same situation. Suddenly we > have to form these organizations again, and institute new allocation > policies for new allocations, but again lack any recourse for all those > people that "greedily" ate up as much space as they could. > > I think there's a continued need to keep an organization in charge of > accounting for the space to whom we as resource holders are accountable > and whom is also accountable to us. Later on, when we realize we've > gone wrong somewhere (and it will happen) and need to make changes to > policy, there is a process by which we can do it where all the parties > involved already have an established relationship. > > I am not going to argue your second request. It'd certainly be cheaper > to do things your way. I just think it's a terrible idea. > > -- > Kevin Stange > Chief Technology Officer > Steadfast Networks > http://steadfast.net > Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 > >