Re: [sig-policy] prop-091: Limiting of final /8 policy to specific /9
On Jan 23, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:
> Hi Owen,
>
> On 23/01/2011, at 3:12 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
>>> We also don't know how exactly the industry is going to react to this. Clearly IPv6 as a product is a bit of a failure in terms of uptake (understatement of the week?). I've heard different voices suggest many different things, from the speculation of 'there will be a v4 trading system' through to 'we will add/remove/reconfigure technology to bypass the issue', even the more insidious 'we have the financial resources to buy companies that have the v4 we want'. So I personally don't know exactly how the industry will satisfy those v4 needs.
>>>
>> I don't think you can call IPv6 a failure as a product in terms of uptake yet.
>
> RFC2460 was done in December 1998. There have been a few RFCs that update it, but not in such a way to majorly alter it.
> 12 years to have the minor deployment we see now. That speaks to me. So lets agree to disagree on the success of the IPv6 product to date and leave that for a bar discussion. :)
>
Success to date, I will agree with you. However, it was never expected that
IPv6 would see widespread deployment by people 12 years in advance of
runout, and, there were many years spent searching for an alternate reason
that would drive IPv6 adoption faster.
The reality is there isn't one. IPv4 runout is the killer app. that will drive
IPv6. (perhaps seriously aided by NAT444 being such a dismal
perspective for the end-user).
So, while I agree IPv6 has not been a rousing success just yet, my point
was that you can't call it a failure over all yet. It hasn't really been put
in the retail stores to see whether it sells or not just yet. It would be like
calling the iPhone 4 a dismal failure before the 3GS was launched.
>>
>> I think the industry will use any and all methods available to it to satisfy
>> those needs. I also think that IPv6 will get adopted and those needs will
>> start to wane in 3-5 years from runout.
>
> ..interesting.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. Space set aside for unknown future needs that is never used
>>>> until after all needs are in the past is space wasted. Obviously
>>>
>>> I'm not so sure that those 'unknown future needs' will pass by so quickly that we can't address them when they are identified in the policy development process. Certainly the PDP may not be as nimble as some would like, but it isn't a sloth either.
>>>
>> It's fairly slothy compared to the rate at which the internet moves.
>>
>
> The APNIC policy proposals I have been involved in have taken about 9months from idea to implementation.
> How long did it take to do DNSSEC?, v6 deployment? .. oh, still going ;) O.k. I'll concede that some products on the internet move quickly - twitter, facebook, ebay google.. etc.. But it seems anything infrastructure uses the treacle-clock for timing.
>
IPv4 runout is going to be different and you know it. IPv4 runout is not going to be
slow. There's no sign that things are slowing down towards IPv4 runout. Quite
the opposite. People are starting to see the wall and they seem to be standing
on the gas pedal hoping to get enough momentum to somehow blow through
it. (I expect this effort will look a lot like a US NHTSA test at the end, as I'm pretty
sure the runout wall doesn't have the ability to give, but, it will be interesting).
>>>>
>>>
>>> The data provided doesn't, and can't, take into account how the industry is going to react. Who knows, maybe when the last 5 /8s get handed to the RIRs in the coming [days|weeks|month] the entire industry does a massive v6 deployment, or maybe completely changes their service model.
>
>>>
>> What does it matter how the industry reacts. The data shows that 50%
>> of the /8 sits on the shelf unless people go to extraordinary lengths
>> to defeat the intent of the policy that put it there.
>>
>
> So I'm approaching this from the philosophical position that the industry (re)defines the policies when it discovers there is a problem through practical application of the incumbent policy. So I think how the industry behaves in the next 6 months is very very relevant as it makes _practical_ headway into this shortfall of v4 addresses. That then will provide the evidence for a policy change.
>
It's going to be weeks, not months after IPv4 runout at the RIR level when people make the decision to circumvent this policy if they have to.
People will adapt much faster than the policy framework will in this situation. Do you have ANYTHING to offer to suggest I am somehow wrong about this?
> I don't think that people will try to go to extraordinary lengths en mass. Maybe I'm naive in my belief of human nature. I suspect that if a major issue is discovered (and you might be right) there will be enough noise made by the industry to awaken our senses and alter the policy to open up that extra little /9.
>
It doesn't have to be en mass. It just has to be large enough to create about 8,000 new APNIC memberships. If you don't think
that $LARGE_PROVIDERs desperate for address space will spin up a few dozen or a few hundred new "subsidiaries" to
each go get their /22s rather than stop adding new IPv4 customers, I have to wonder if you have any experience in
a capitalist economy.
>
>> Yes, industry can react by taking extraordinary measures to work
>> around the policy, but, if that is the case you are attempting to
>> account for, then, doesn't it make more sense to fix the policy
>> than to force the workarounds?
>>
>
> Is it broken now? (not broken according to your scenario of +3-5 years of needs while v6 is deployed, but right now?)
> I don't think it is. In time (3-5 years) it might _become_ broken. But I don't have your confidence in the forecast yet.
>
Yes... It is broken now. There's a /9 and then some held on a shelf that cannot be utilized by any mechanism other
than circumventing policy. Failure to properly allocate available space will not look good to the outside world.
Doing so in a manner that rewards only those organizations willing to subvert policy will look even worse.
>>>
>> If we don't have knowledge to make any call, then, we should distribute the space. We know it is needed. We don't know that it will ever be needed. The need you know should trump the unknown.
>>
>
> It _may_ be needed. It isn't needed _now_
>
If it isn't needed, then noone will apply for it and APNIC will not distribute it.
You're not making sense here.
> I don't think waiting the 6-7 months until we are in the thick of shortfall and near another policy meeting will be dire. I do think that the time in watching will provide enough knowledge on how to move forwards (or sideways).
>
I think you underestimate the speed at which runout is accelerating.
Owen