[arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

[Fernando Frediani]

I may be wrong but it looks like that for some people at some point the 
only thing that matters is the sensation someone may be trying to tell 
them how to do things than if IPv6 should be deployed or not.
Right, how long more will we be in this back and forth of "I know I have 
to deploy IPv6 but I will do on my own time" ? How long more we will 
hear things like "there is no other way out of transfer market" and "it 
is natural thing to buy more IPv4 to be in business" and then right 
after "Don't tell me I have to deploy IPv6".

There have been times in the past when deploying IPv6 had challenges, 
concerns or limitations, but now a days let's be honest, there are 
probably none. We are in 2019, nearly 2020 and it seems there are still 
a significant amount of people that wishes to keep supporting the 
transfer market rather than do the obvious that we all know will make 
the Internet ecosystem to keep evolving, perhaps with less conflicts.
And what Albert is proposing to discuss is fair and very much 
reasonable, nothing out of order: simply the organization to show it is 
doing its job (or is there anyone the believes IPv6 is still just 
accessory and can wait another 20 years ?) in order that is can use the 
transfer mechanism of IPv4. He didn't suggest anything different than that.

Shall we focus on discussing the pro and cons of this possible proposal, 
if it is suitable or not, if it will make the Internet advance or not, 
rather than arm against the nature of things ?
Thanks for bringing this 2007 Board's statement to this discussion.

Regards
Fernando

On 27/08/2019 23:44, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
> I noticed this item from 7 May 2007 that I think would support my 
> suggestion:
>
>     WHEREAS, community access to Internet Protocol (IP) numbering 
> Resources has proved essential to the successful growth of the 
> Internet; and,
>
>     WHEREAS, ongoing community access to Internet Protocol version 4 
> (IPv4) numbering resources can not be assured indefinitely; and,
>
>     WHEREAS, Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) numbering resources 
> are available and suitable for many Internet applications,
>
>     BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board of Trustees hereby advises the 
> Internet community that migration to IPv6 numbering resources is 
> necessary for any applications which require ongoing availability from 
> ARIN of contiguous IP numbering resources; and,
>
>     BE IT ORDERED, that this Board of Trustees hereby directs ARIN 
> staff to take any and all measures necessary to assure veracity of 
> applications to ARIN for IPv4 numbering resources; and,
>
>     BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board of Trustees hereby requests the 
> ARIN Advisory Council to consider Internet Numbering Resource Policy 
> changes advisable to encourage migration to IPv6 numbering resources 
> where possible.
>
> Unanimously passed by the Board of Trustees on 7 May 2007.
>
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2019, John Curran wrote:
>
>> On 27 Aug 2019, at 5:26 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>>       ...
>>       The US Government tried to force it's departments to do IPv6
>>       most of them did it, but many promptly turned it off after
>>       passing the tests.
>>
>>
>> David -
>> While not taking any position on the proposed policy change, I would 
>> like to
>> make sure the record is correct with regard to USG IPv6 deployment…
>>
>> To this day, US government agencies have a high IPv6 adoption rate 
>> for their
>> public facing services (particularly when compared to the industry or
>> educational deployment rate in the US.)
>> Note that you can readily show this, as NIST measures deployment 
>> daily and
>> publishes the results here - https://fedv6-deployment.antd.nist.gov
>>
>> Thanks,
>> /John
>>
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190828/1b62832b/attachment.htm>