[arin-ppml] IANA IPv4 /8 burn rate....

I believe the proposal that reserves the last N (for some value of N)
  addresses for transitional technologies comes much closer to
achieving that stated purpose than any transfer policy will.

Owen

On Aug 29, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> Yeah, that's why the idea of "everyone must convert to IPv6 at the  
> same
> time" makes no sense to me.  IPv4 and IPv6 will have to interoperate  
> for
> some time, so we need to have policies that continue to make IPv4
> available to support such transition mechanisms.
>
> -Scott
>
> Paul G. Timmins wrote:
>> Biodiesel is available, and works in almost any vehicle that takes
>> normal diesel.
>> It doesn't use fossil fuels, and in some cases, burns cleaner.
>>
>> But it doesn't work in cars that take Unleaded Gas.
>>
>> So we shouldn't use Biodiesel until all cars can use it. That way we
>> don't have to worry about compatibility issues.
>>
>> -Paul
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
>>> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 4:59 PM
>>> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>>> Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IANA IPv4 /8 burn rate....
>>>
>>> Electric cars are better than gasoline ones.  Electric cars
>>> are available
>>> today, and fully compatible with the existing road system.
>>> Therefore, we
>>> should stop selling gasoline cars and go all electric.
>>>
>>> Oh, electric cars are too expensive, you say?  And there's no
>>> charging
>>> stations where you live?  Well that's OK, because you'll be
>>> better off in
>>> the long run.
>>>
>>> -Scott
>>>
>>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:42 PM
>>>>> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>>>>> Cc: 'Scott Leibrand'; 'Alain Durand'; 'ARIN PPML'
>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IANA IPv4 /8 burn rate....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>>>>  Everyone who assumes that moving to IPv6 would be better
>>>>> has I think
>>>>>> already provided a boatload of arguments as to why their
>>>>> way would be
>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  But I have not really heard any arguments from the people
>>>>> who want
>>>>>> to stay with IPv4 as to why their way would be better.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think that answer is simple: the short-term cost of adding
>>>>> more NAT is
>>>>> lower than the short-term cost of moving everything to IPv6.
>>>>> There's a
>>>>> lot of stuff that _still_ doesn't work (well or at all) with IPv6,
>>>>> despite over a decade of work and sweeping claims by IPv6
>>>>> supporters, so
>>>>> the cost of the latter option isn't even calculable
>>> because it's not
>>>>> possible -- but even the parts that are possible will
>>>>> undoubtedly cost
>>>>> more, in the short term, than just tossing a few more NAT
>>>>> boxes into the
>>>>> network.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think everyone is in agreement that the long-term costs
>>> of IPv6 are
>>>>> cheaper than IPv4+NAT; what we're really debating is if
>>> and when that
>>>>> transition will happen and what to do in the meantime.
>>>>>
>>>> If the long term costs of IPv6 are cheaper that is a huge argument
>>>> against tossing a few more NAT boxes into the network.  In short
>>>> you have just successfully argued one of the many points AGAINST
>>>> a liberalized transfer policy, and FOR moving to IPv6 asap, that
>>>> is, why IPv6 is better.
>>>>
>>>> I had asked for arguments from the people who want to stay with  
>>>> IPv4
>>>> as to why their way would be better, and the best you can come
>>>> up with so far is to take an argument saying the IPv4 way would
>>>> be worse, and turn it upside down and paint it a different color
>>>> and hope I wouldn't notice this?
>>>>
>>>> Surely you do better than that!
>>>>
>>>> The transition would happen tomorrow if people just went
>>> and did the work.
>>>> Unfortunately the IPv6 transition is something that
>>> everyone doing it
>>>> is dependent on everyone else doing their bit.  The end users can't
>>>> switch unless they get native IPv6 from their ISPs, and they can't
>>>> use a proxy because an IPv4->IPv6 proxy standard is still
>>> under debate.
>>>> The ISP's can't switch until their feeds switch, and those
>>> can't switch
>>>> until their peers switch, and their peers are probably the
>>> worst of all.
>>>> You get 3 backbones like Sprint, ATT & MCI in the room and MCI will
>>>> say they can't go to IPv6 until Sprint does, and Sprint will say
>>>> they can't go to IPv6 until ATT does, and ATT says they can't go to
>>>> IPv6 until MCI does.
>>>>
>>>> If you're a father of children surely you will have recognized this
>>>> as classic textbook BSing by now.
>>>>
>>>> Claims that IPv6 is not ready yet are EXACTLY LIKE claims that
>>>> Microsoft Windows Vista isn't ready yet.  They are simply bogus
>>>> nonsense excuses that people make because IPv4 is a comfortable
>>>> pair of old broken-in shoes, and IPv6 is the brand new pair of
>>>> shiny, creaky, squeaky shoes.  Yes the new shoes will take some
>>>> breaking in and you will get some sores for a bit until you
>>>> adjust.  But how long are you going to keep putting tape or  
>>>> whatever
>>>> on the old shoes?  Until they fall apart and the Internet
>>> stops working?
>>>> Ted
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.