[arin-ppml] Proposal insanity --- an open letter
I don't often post to PPML, but here goes.
--On 21 February 2011 11:24:23 PM -0500 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Also, to say that ipv4 is "baked" and therefore we should stop talking
> about it or developing policies for it misses the crucial fact that no
> one can jump to pure ipv6 without cutting themselves off from most of the
> internet. "Implementing ipv6" in reality means "implementing dual stack"
> - now and for the next ten years at least. How do you do dual stack
> without any ipv4, do tell?
First: In this context, "dual stack" is defined as including IPv4, of
course. And the IPv4 addresses which are used can be public or private, of
Milton, I guess you understand private addressing and NATs. Dual stack
during the transition will involve mostly private IPv4 addresses, and NAT
of various kinds between those private addresses and the public; along with
public IPv6 addresses of course. The more that this NATing goes on, as the
Internet grows, the less efficient that IPv4-based connectivity will
become, to the point of being less preferred than IPv6. At the same time,
IPv6 connectivity steadily improves in terms of services accessible,
routing efficiency, and general reliability; starting with today's
relatively meagre coverage, until it is preferred, first in some, then in
most, and then in all, places.
As for the public addresses needed by ISPs for their gateway into the IPv4
Internet, some RIRs already have a policy which will make this available in
the long term, effectively rationing some proportion of their remaining
IPv4 address pools. APNIC has such a policy in place, currently reserving
most of a /8 for allocations in /22 blocks; and this supply of addresses is
projected to last for many years, beyond the point where they are actually
That's the model in a nutshell. Crack away at it by all means, but it is
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100