[128675] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lightly used IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Sat Aug 14 00:17:21 2010
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:15:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: <m2bp95q37t.wl%randy@psg.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 13, 2010, at 11:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> If the allocation and reassignment of address space has no policy
>> associated with it, then there's no doubt that most of the registry
>> functions can be automated, and there's no need for the associated
>> policy development process, public policy meetings, travel, conference
>> calls. Quite a bit of savings available there, but the community
>> first has to decide on permanent policy (or lack thereof :-) for that
>> automated world before we can reap the savings.
>=20
> when the 'community' is defined as those policy wannabes who do the
> flying, take the cruise junkets, ... this is a self-perpetuating
> steaming load that is not gonna change.
In theory, it's quite realistic to see it changing for IPv6 over time,
since there is remarkable abundance even just the existing allocations
made to date; we've no doubt already issues more IPv6 space that the=20
entire Internet will need, and the only reason that an organization gets=20
space from an RIR is the implication that such space will be routable.
If ISPs were to hypothetically charge for use of a non-provider issues
prefix and figure out a way to settle up for the routing impact, then
there is already plenty of IPv6 space issued today, and one could seek=20
an allocation from nearly anyone and know the cost for it be useable. =20
Getting started via IPv6 would probably be easier than IPv4, but once=20
running if shouldn't be too hard to make work for both. You can then
completely eliminate routing driven constraints from the system, and
get very close to vending machine with a pull handle for getting more=20
addresses...
> one start would be for arin to have the guts not to pay travel expenses
> of non-employees/contractors.
ARIN Suggestion process: <https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/index.html>
If you submit it, I will bring it to the Board for consideration. In fairn=
ess,
I will tell you that I'll also recommend to the that we continue to pay for=
the
travel for the Advisory Council, unless and until there is no need for a po=
licy=20
development process. =20
/John=
