[arin-ppml] IPv6 Transition Policy (aka Soft Landing)
On 10/10/10 11:28 PM, "Matthew Petach" <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com>
>> Let me offer a general response to all of the great feedback:
>> The basic idea here is to redefine efficient utilization. The fact is
>> that at this point (and for quite some time now) IPv4 addresses that
>> are not deployed along with IPv6 addresses are simply not being
>> efficiently utilized. Just like assigning a v4/24 to a PTP link is
>> wasteful, deploying IPv4 only is wasteful.
> I would argue that this is where the market will step in; this is a wonderful
> opportunity for Transition Service Providers to help providers who are not
> dual stacked get access to the portion of the Internet for which they do not
> have direct, native connectivity.
> Why use policy to try to shape an outcome that can be achieved through
> normal market interplay, creating thousands of jobs in the process?
So far, I found four jobs at one major job site and a few more on another,
some duplicate. :-) I searched for IPv6 news articles on [your favorite
search engine] and found them to be few and far between. I think that this
is indicative of the level of readiness our there with respect to v6 and
which is why I think that doing something is better than nothing.
I would think we'd all rather be wrong at the cost of a /8 or so vs. wrong
at the cost of a billion(s) of dollars and not necessarily the creation of
jobs. Seems like it could go either way depending upon who can buy v4
addresses to fund their transition ambition. If we create millionaries and
lots of jobs that would be great, but that sounds like a cliff scenario and
that would be fail IMHO.
I heard some interesting assertions on what addresses will cost post
depletion last week and nothing was convincing to the point where I thought
that $100 an address minimum was not unreasonable. Honestly, not sure which
way would be best.
> Deploying IPv4 only creates scarcity; scarcity drives up demand; higher
Agreed. Demand drives up cost and we leave the middle guys in the house of
pain. At least it seems that way to me.
> demand creates market opportunities (so long as we don't overly restrict
> them); market opportunities allow new businesses to spring up to fulfill
> the need, bringing new jobs into the sector.
> Personally, I'm against a soft landing. We did just fine when faced with
> the hard deadline of Y2k; it created thousands of jobs for people working
y2k was overhyped IMHO. This has been under-hyped. YMMV!