ARIN-PPML Archive

[arin-ppml] IPv4 is depleted today

David Farmer — 2008-08-30T02:46:37Z

On 29 Aug 2008 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> On 29 Aug 2008 David Farmer wrote:
>
> > On 29 Aug 2008 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> > > There are a couple of phrases in this post I found most
> > > humorous:
> > >
> > > "...return our current IPv4 address space it is to valuable
> > > internally...."
> > >
> > > "...will be necessary to extend the life of
> > > IPv4 long enough for us to get IPv6 ramped up..."
> >
> > Glad to be comic relief for you, but;
> >
> > > What our esteemed colleague David is saying is in essence
> > > he wants a transfer policy because he has a lot of IPv4
> > > and he (understandably) wants to continue to use it.
> > > He labels IPv6 not ready, why not? He already has
> > > plenty of IPv4, he doesn't need IPv6. He has no incentive
> > > to deploy IPv6, really.
> >
> > Wrong, we have plenty of incentive to deploy IPv6, we been
> > working on it,
>
> Can you walk into your University Presidents office and
> tell him with a straight face that unless they pony up a
> quarter million bucks over the next 3 years for IPv6 deployment,
> that the college will lose connectivity to the Internet?

I don't have to; IPv6 was built into our requirements for our last tech refresh,
4 years ago, and that wasn't a quarter million it was 16 million, and included
10G backbone and 10/100/1000 for now 70,000 ports.

> That is my point. Of course you could not.

Probably not as a separate project, but if your not doing a tech refresh in the
next 2 years or so why didn't you include IPv6 in your last tech refresh? The
writing was on the wall.

> If you did there
> would be an investigation by the beancounters who would find
> out that the real answer is "well, maybe we need to do this
> but not right at this moment" and the President would say "I
> understand where your coming from but there's more important
> things to spend money on right now" and that would, as they
> say, be that.

No, that wouldn't be the President of the University that would be the CIO,
and I have a plak on my wall thanking me for a three year effort, of which
making sure all the new equipment has basic IPv6 capabilities was one little
part.

> THAT is what I am talking about when I say you have no real
> incentive. Not you personally, your organization. It does not.
> Have any real incentive. And it will not until the rest of
> the Internet does, in fact, switch to IPv6

That is where you are wrong, you might be right for other organizations but
we were doing IPv4 in 1985 or so. What was our incentive to do IPv4 then?
We have the same incentives to do IPv6 now.

> You must have heard of the phrase "Mexican Standoff" I am sure.
> Same issue.
>
> > have you? We just have bigger incentives not to break IPv4,
> > yet, and there
> > are other projects, with higher priorities too.
>
> So you will do very little until the loss of access to IPv6
> makes conversion to IPv6 into the top-dog incentive, more
> of an incentive than breaking IPv4, or other projects with
> "higher priorities"

It will be done long before it needs to be a top priority, if I wanted to just
throw the switch I could do it right now. But, we aren't just going to throw the
switch. Did you miss the part in my original email "I hope to enable it (IPv6)
on our whole backbone and make it available anywhere anyone wants it yet
this year or early next, then in 2010 or 2011 turn it on by default
everywhere on campus."

> This is visionary management?

Well, I think we do pretty good, if your not ready for IPv6 then it is you who
lacks visionary management.

> Aren't you setting the priorities on your own projects?

No, that is what CIOs, Directors, and Managers are for. We are deploying
about 3000 new 802.11n APs as we speak, students don't care about IPv6
yet, they sure do about wireless though. We just completed upgrades for
10G WAN connectivity, including lighting 1500 miles of dark fiber, we share
a 100G to Chicago and are already upgrading to 200G. IPv6 is not a top
priority, but it high enough on the list that work does get done on it.

> > But, we are
> > making deliberate,
> > all be it slow progress, are you? Four years ago we had IPv6 as an
> > equipment requirement for our new campus network RFP, we have been
> > putting our money where our mouth is for IPv6 for a while.
> >
> > But, IPv6 ain't ready for grandma today, with a lot of work
> > it will be by IPv4
> > exhaustion.
> >
>
> And when will this work be done? It seems the incentive is into
> putting work into finding out how to avoid doing the work to switch to
> IPv6, rather than actually switching.

Not for us. We've been working on it for several years now.

> Name 5 reasons that have nothing to do with money that you
> could not switch to IPv6 right this moment. I am sure there must be
> some. THOSE are the REAL reasons that are blocking IPv6 deployment.
> All other reasons, including the monetary "other projects are higher
> priority" are bogus nonsense.

1. The risk of getting IPv6 labelled as that stuff that breaks the network
2. Testing, Testing, more Testing, and Change Control
3. Lack of feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6 on the same platform
4. Stupid vendor games, making IPv6 a special feature train
5. Having to argue with people like you that IPv6 is what needs to happen

See this for the detail of a particular instance of #2 and #3;

http://events.internet2.edu/2008/jt-
hawaii/sessionDetails.cfm?session=3638&event=278

Also, #2, #3, and #4 have money components, but thats not the driver for
them.

#5 alternates between a big a head ache and a lot of fun depending on how
I feel on a particular day. :)

> When people talk about IPv6 not being ready, THOSE are the issues that
> they should be talking about. But they don't - mostly, they talk
> about how expensive it's going to be to switch everything. That's
> making excuses.

Not us, look at the link above.

> In our case the reason is simple - our major upstream promised native
> IPv6 this fall, last year. A few months ago they reniged. There will
> be consequences when their contract comes up at the end of the year.

Good, you have to put your money where your mouth is.

> And incidentally they are a GSA contractor and so they obviously are
> reniging on the US government requirement for IPv6 too. I cannot
> understand how this is allowed to be so without consequences - but
> thankfully our owner has avoided government jobs when possible so we
> do not have, as they might say, an intimate knowledge of how
> government suppliers are allowed to get away with breaking their
> promises. Our suppliers aren't.

I won't go there except to say, the Government "requirement" was mostly
smoke. I have a commercial IP provider (GX) that does IPv6 and IPv6 was
part of the reason we selected them. I also have Internet2 connectivity.
You could do tunnels to get started, I wouldn't use tunnel for production, but
you can get your feet wet.

> > > He also won't give his network's IPv4 up to "sell" through
> > a transfer
> > > policy, or course not. He is just expecting every other
> > legacy holder
> > > out there to sell off their IPv4.
> >
> > Wrong, if the University of Minnesota were to stop using it's
> > IPv4 address
> > space we will return it to ARIN, and not sell it. We have in
> > the past, we
> > returned a C to IANA when we got our original B, and we may return a
> > couple other swamp C's in the future as a matter of principle, but
> > that really won't make any difference to anything. Nor, would
> > returning all of our address space, it might delay IANA exhaustion
> > by a whole day or two.
> >
> > I'm just trying to recognize that it will be easier and more
> > effective to give
> > people an incentive to return address space, then to only ask
> > them return it,
> > or to try to force them to return it.
> >
>
> Timing is everything. Giving back a large swath of IPv6 pre-IPv6
> runout matters. Giving it back soon after runout matters. Giving it
> back years later, when IPv6 is well on it's way, it nothing more than
> a photo-op.

I think you mean "Giving back a large swath of IPv4 pre-IPv4 run-out
matters." At the current burn-rate giving back anything less than a major
portion of a /8 is really only a photo-op. That might means a month or two
longer at current burn-rates. After IPv4 run-out giving back any addresses
probably wouldn't even make a historical footnote, let alone a photo-op.

> > > The situation reminds me when my city, Portland OR, put
> > > in Light Rail. Everyone driving cars in the city strongly
> > supported
> > > light rail. They all wanted it because the figured that "the
> > > OTHER guy" would stop driving his car, and take light rail, and
> > get the heck
> > > off the freeway so that THEY could drive an uncongested freeway.
> > >
> > > Needless to say, the freeway congestion did NOT go away.
> > >
> > > I would ask our colleague that if he feels that it would
> > > be too much trouble for him to split his legacy block
> > > to be able to sell off part of it under a liberalized
> > transfer policy,
> > > doesn't he think that everyone else with a legacy block is going
> > > to feel the same way? Why is he special? And if every other
> > > legacy holder feels this way, then where exactly are these IPv4
> > blocks going
> > > to come from that will be sold through a liberalized transfer
> > > policy, that will "extend the life of IPv4" as he puts it.
> > >
> > > In short, he meticulously explains why a liberalized
> > transfer policy
> > > would do absolutely nothing to help him return his unused
> > IPv4 space
> > > to the free pool, then proceeds to claim that we need a
> > > liberalized transfer policy to enable more IPv4 to be returned to
> > > the
> > free pool!!!
> > >
> > > I can't think of a more damming example of why a
> > liberalized transfer
> > > policy would be about as useful as teats on a boar.
> >
> > You are right, we're not special, a liberalized transfer
> > policy will probably not
> > free up much space. That was one of my points, that I
> > obviously didn't
> > hammer hard enough.
> >
> > But, it might free up a little, and we're going to need every
> > hair-brained Wile
> > E. Coyote idea we can come up with to get to keep IPv4 going
> > long enough
> > to get everyone on to IPv6.
>
> Correction WE are going to need it, YOU are not. Because as you
> say, you already have enough IPv4 to last you.

Because of Metcalfe's Law, I = YOU = WE = THEM, I lose value if your not
connected.

> > Because unlike Wile E. Coyote,
> > if the Internet
> > falls off the cliff we not going to get up and walk away.
> >
>
> No, what will happen is the moneymen in the various companies
> that have billions invested in the Internet will apply wads of
> cash to the problem and voila, all IPv6 deployment problems
> will vanish.

Right, you obviously don't understand the combination of Internet Scale and
Logistics, there are problems that money can't solve, and that only time can.
Wile E. Coyote seems to have an infinite credit line with ACME and he still
can't catch the Road Runner. :)

> Right now all they are doing is throwing engineers at the problem and
> letting them argue amongst themselves as to the best solutions.
> Because, they really don't care right now because there's still IPv4
> available. They figure once runout actually happens, the engineers
> will have finished arguing and then they will start paying for the
> deployment.

That's to late, the Internet goes splat, and unlike Wile E. Coyote we don't get
up a walk away.

> > I'll put it back on you, are you sure we can get IPv6 fully
> > deployed before
> > IPv4 crashes into the wall, I'm not. We (UMN) will be there
> > but we've been
> > working on it for a long time. I don't think everyone will be.
> >
>
> Then, those who truly are unable to deploy it will say goodby
> to the Internet and go back to growing vegetables, or mailing
> letters via US mail or whatever they were doing before the
> Internet came along. While the rest of the world leaves them
> behind.

Again Metcalfe's Law, if they go away we lose a lot too.

> When the horse-drawn carriage came out, a lot of people who were
> farmers ended up being blacksmiths, and carriage makers, and
> such. Then when the automobile came out, not every buggy whip
> maker made the transition to making cars. Some kept making
> buggy whips until they died - and likely, they were happy
> doing it. They had just opted out of the rat race.
>
> We cannot fundamentally change the Internet to accommodate the
> buggy whip makers. Right now we all are making buggy whips.
> But, before most of us retire, we likely will be making cars.

Then why do you seem to be telling people to keep making buggy whips?

> > If we have a transfer policy that might free up a little
> > space, it is not going to
> > save us in the long term, nor will NAT, only IPv6 can do
> > that. But it could
> > help build a bridge,
>
> No, all it will do is provide incentive to the beancounters
> who don't know squat about anything, to NOT spend money for
> a while longer. It's a false hope, a mirage.
>
> > and if IPv4 addresses went for $1000 an
> > address it sure
> > would make a bigger incentive to move to IPv6 and hopefully
> > push IPv6 up
> > the priority list for IT departments everywhere. So if only
> > for that reason, it
> > might help to have a transfer policy, to give that extra little
> > push.
> >
>
> IT departments who would only take action if this happened are what we
> call reactionary. In the US, unless a business is in a monopoly,
> (like Microsoft) being reactionary just pushes you down the whirlpool
> of inaction until you go out of business.
>
> > I also think the longer we debate a transfer policy, the more
> > the message
> > that IPv6 is the only true hope get diluted.
> >
>
> You are right. We should just kill the transfer policy idea and
> be done with it.

I could live with that if it could only just happen.

You might subscribe to my alternate proposal then, lets relax the usage
requirement for IPv4 and kick up the burn-rate, make it run out faster. Then
your moneymen come to the rescue. The only problem with this, that's a big
gamble. If we get it wrong, Wile E. Coyote goes splat and maybe even hard
enough that he doesn't get up.

What do you think?

> Ted

=======================================================
David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815
2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818
=======================================================

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

Ted Mittelstaedt — 2008-08-30T00:22:08Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:23 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Scott Leibrand'; 'Alain Durand'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IANA IPv4 /8 burn rate....
>
>

> The economics strongly favor that scenario, and that scenario
> has been
> played out several times in the past: nobody is willing to
> step up and
> spend the money to fix things, which gives their non-acting
> competitors
> an financial advantage, so any major change to the Internet
> must result
> from actual failure because that forces _all_ players to act
> at the same
> time.
>
> The financial markets also encourages executives to cut costs today
> despite disastrous long-term consequences, because the
> executives will
> rake in tens of millions of dollars in the meantime and then pull the
> ripcord on their golden parachute when their choices catch up
> to them,
> leaving the mess to the next round of execs -- or a
> bankruptcy court --
> to sort things out and start the cycle over again.
>

Then I ask you, how long until the Halkan's prediction of galactic
revolt is realized? IPv4 is illogical, it cannot endure, and
therefore you are illogical to willingly be a part of it.

Do nothing - let the failure happen.

Ted

[arin-ppml] IPv4 is depleted today

Ted Mittelstaedt — 2008-08-30T00:12:57Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer at umn.edu]
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 3:22 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net; Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'David Farmer'
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] IPv4 is depleted today
>
>
> On 29 Aug 2008 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > There are a couple of phrases in this post I found most
> > humorous:
> >
> > "...return our current IPv4 address space it is to valuable
> > internally...."
> >
> > "...will be necessary to extend the life of
> > IPv4 long enough for us to get IPv6 ramped up..."
>
> Glad to be comic relief for you, but;
>
> > What our esteemed colleague David is saying is in essence
> > he wants a transfer policy because he has a lot of IPv4
> > and he (understandably) wants to continue to use it.
> > He labels IPv6 not ready, why not? He already has
> > plenty of IPv4, he doesn't need IPv6. He has no incentive
> > to deploy IPv6, really.
>
> Wrong, we have plenty of incentive to deploy IPv6, we been
> working on it,

Can you walk into your University Presidents office and
tell him with a straight face that unless they pony up a
quarter million bucks over the next 3 years for IPv6 deployment,
that the college will lose connectivity to the Internet?

That is my point. Of course you could not. If you did there
would be an investigation by the beancounters who would find
out that the real answer is "well, maybe we need to do this
but not right at this moment" and the President would say "I
understand where your coming from but there's more important
things to spend money on right now" and that would, as they
say, be that.

THAT is what I am talking about when I say you have no real
incentive. Not you personally, your organization. It does not.
Have any real incentive. And it will not until the rest of
the Internet does, in fact, switch to IPv6

You must have heard of the phrase "Mexican Standoff" I am sure.
Same issue.

> have you? We just have bigger incentives not to break IPv4,
> yet, and there
> are other projects, with higher priorities too.

So you will do very little until the loss of access to IPv6
makes conversion to IPv6 into the top-dog incentive, more
of an incentive than breaking IPv4, or other projects with
"higher priorities"

This is visionary management? Aren't you setting the priorities
on your own projects?

> But, we are
> making deliberate,
> all be it slow progress, are you? Four years ago we had IPv6 as an
> equipment requirement for our new campus network RFP, we have been
> putting our money where our mouth is for IPv6 for a while.
>
> But, IPv6 ain't ready for grandma today, with a lot of work
> it will be by IPv4
> exhaustion.
>

And when will this work be done? It seems the incentive is into putting
work into finding out how to avoid doing the work to switch to IPv6,
rather than actually switching.

Name 5 reasons that have nothing to do with money that you
could not switch to IPv6 right this moment. I am sure there must
be some. THOSE are the REAL reasons that are blocking IPv6
deployment. All other reasons, including the monetary "other
projects are higher priority" are bogus nonsense.

When people talk about IPv6 not being ready, THOSE are the issues
that they should be talking about. But they don't - mostly, they
talk about how expensive it's going to be to switch everything.
That's making excuses.

In our case the reason is simple - our major upstream promised native
IPv6 this fall, last year. A few months ago they reniged. There
will be consequences when their contract comes up at the end
of the year. And incidentally they are a GSA contractor and so they
obviously are reniging on the US government requirement for IPv6
too. I cannot understand how this is allowed to be so without
consequences - but thankfully our owner has avoided government
jobs when possible so we do not have, as they might say, an intimate
knowledge of how government suppliers are allowed to get away with
breaking their promises. Our suppliers aren't.

> > He also won't give his network's IPv4 up to "sell" through
> a transfer
> > policy, or course not. He is just expecting every other
> legacy holder
> > out there to sell off their IPv4.
>
> Wrong, if the University of Minnesota were to stop using it's
> IPv4 address
> space we will return it to ARIN, and not sell it. We have in
> the past, we
> returned a C to IANA when we got our original B, and we may return a
> couple other swamp C's in the future as a matter of
> principle, but that really
> won't make any difference to anything. Nor, would returning
> all of our
> address space, it might delay IANA exhaustion by a whole day or two.
>
> I'm just trying to recognize that it will be easier and more
> effective to give
> people an incentive to return address space, then to only ask
> them return it,
> or to try to force them to return it.
>

Timing is everything. Giving back a large swath of IPv6 pre-IPv6
runout matters. Giving it back soon after runout matters. Giving
it back years later, when IPv6 is well on it's way, it nothing
more than a photo-op.

> > The situation reminds me when my city, Portland OR, put
> > in Light Rail. Everyone driving cars in the city strongly
> supported
> > light rail. They all wanted it because the figured that "the OTHER
> > guy" would stop driving his car, and take light rail, and
> get the heck
> > off the freeway so that THEY could drive an uncongested freeway.
> >
> > Needless to say, the freeway congestion did NOT go away.
> >
> > I would ask our colleague that if he feels that it would
> > be too much trouble for him to split his legacy block
> > to be able to sell off part of it under a liberalized
> transfer policy,
> > doesn't he think that everyone else with a legacy block is going to
> > feel the same way? Why is he special? And if every other legacy
> > holder feels this way, then where exactly are these IPv4
> blocks going
> > to come from that will be sold through a liberalized transfer
> > policy, that will "extend the life of IPv4" as he puts it.
> >
> > In short, he meticulously explains why a liberalized
> transfer policy
> > would do absolutely nothing to help him return his unused
> IPv4 space
> > to the free pool, then proceeds to claim that we need a liberalized
> > transfer policy to enable more IPv4 to be returned to the
> free pool!!!
> >
> > I can't think of a more damming example of why a
> liberalized transfer
> > policy would be about as useful as teats on a boar.
>
> You are right, we're not special, a liberalized transfer
> policy will probably not
> free up much space. That was one of my points, that I
> obviously didn't
> hammer hard enough.
>
> But, it might free up a little, and we're going to need every
> hair-brained Wile
> E. Coyote idea we can come up with to get to keep IPv4 going
> long enough
> to get everyone on to IPv6.

Correction WE are going to need it, YOU are not. Because as you
say, you already have enough IPv4 to last you.

> Because unlike Wile E. Coyote,
> if the Internet
> falls off the cliff we not going to get up and walk away.
>

No, what will happen is the moneymen in the various companies
that have billions invested in the Internet will apply wads of
cash to the problem and voila, all IPv6 deployment problems
will vanish.

Right now all they are doing is throwing engineers at the problem
and letting them argue amongst themselves as to the best solutions.
Because, they really don't care right now because there's still
IPv4 available. They figure once runout actually happens, the
engineers will have finished arguing and then they will start paying
for the deployment.

> I'll put it back on you, are you sure we can get IPv6 fully
> deployed before
> IPv4 crashes into the wall, I'm not. We (UMN) will be there
> but we've been
> working on it for a long time. I don't think everyone will be.
>

Then, those who truly are unable to deploy it will say goodby
to the Internet and go back to growing vegetables, or mailing
letters via US mail or whatever they were doing before the
Internet came along. While the rest of the world leaves them
behind.

When the horse-drawn carriage came out, a lot of people who were
farmers ended up being blacksmiths, and carriage makers, and
such. Then when the automobile came out, not every buggy whip
maker made the transition to making cars. Some kept making
buggy whips until they died - and likely, they were happy
doing it. They had just opted out of the rat race.

We cannot fundamentally change the Internet to accommodate the
buggy whip makers. Right now we all are making buggy whips.
But, before most of us retire, we likely will be making cars.

> If we have a transfer policy that might free up a little
> space, it is not going to
> save us in the long term, nor will NAT, only IPv6 can do
> that. But it could
> help build a bridge,

No, all it will do is provide incentive to the beancounters
who don't know squat about anything, to NOT spend money for
a while longer. It's a false hope, a mirage.

> and if IPv4 addresses went for $1000 an
> address it sure
> would make a bigger incentive to move to IPv6 and hopefully
> push IPv6 up
> the priority list for IT departments everywhere. So if only
> for that reason, it
> might help to have a transfer policy, to give that extra little push.
>

IT departments who would only take action if this happened are what
we call reactionary. In the US, unless a business is in a monopoly,
(like Microsoft) being reactionary just pushes you down the whirlpool
of inaction until you go out of business.

> I also think the longer we debate a transfer policy, the more
> the message
> that IPv6 is the only true hope get diluted.
>

You are right. We should just kill the transfer policy idea and
be done with it.

Ted

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

Scott Leibrand — 2008-08-29T22:47:04Z

Sorry, that last statement made very little sense in the context of
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_5.html

I think it's time for a long weekend.

-Scott

Scott Leibrand wrote:
> FWIW, I just pinged the authors of the APNIC proposal that just got
> consensus yesterday about proposing it in the ARIN region. Looks like
> they're interested if we are, so we should have something on the table for
> April.
>
> -Scott
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

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

Scott Leibrand — 2008-08-29T22:24:13Z

FWIW, I just pinged the authors of the APNIC proposal that just got
consensus yesterday about proposing it in the ARIN region. Looks like
they're interested if we are, so we should have something on the table for
April.

-Scott

Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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.
>

[arin-ppml] IPv4 is depleted today

David Farmer — 2008-08-29T22:22:23Z

On 29 Aug 2008 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> There are a couple of phrases in this post I found most
> humorous:
>
> "...return our current IPv4 address space it is to valuable
> internally...."
>
> "...will be necessary to extend the life of
> IPv4 long enough for us to get IPv6 ramped up..."

Glad to be comic relief for you, but;

> What our esteemed colleague David is saying is in essence
> he wants a transfer policy because he has a lot of IPv4
> and he (understandably) wants to continue to use it.
> He labels IPv6 not ready, why not? He already has
> plenty of IPv4, he doesn't need IPv6. He has no incentive
> to deploy IPv6, really.

Wrong, we have plenty of incentive to deploy IPv6, we been working on it,
have you? We just have bigger incentives not to break IPv4, yet, and there
are other projects, with higher priorities too. But, we are making deliberate,
all be it slow progress, are you? Four years ago we had IPv6 as an
equipment requirement for our new campus network RFP, we have been
putting our money where our mouth is for IPv6 for a while.

But, IPv6 ain't ready for grandma today, with a lot of work it will be by IPv4
exhaustion.

> He also won't give his network's IPv4 up to "sell" through a
> transfer policy, or course not. He is just expecting every
> other legacy holder out there to sell off their IPv4.

Wrong, if the University of Minnesota were to stop using it's IPv4 address
space we will return it to ARIN, and not sell it. We have in the past, we
returned a C to IANA when we got our original B, and we may return a
couple other swamp C's in the future as a matter of principle, but that really
won't make any difference to anything. Nor, would returning all of our
address space, it might delay IANA exhaustion by a whole day or two.

I'm just trying to recognize that it will be easier and more effective to give
people an incentive to return address space, then to only ask them return it,
or to try to force them to return it.

> The situation reminds me when my city, Portland OR, put
> in Light Rail. Everyone driving cars in the city strongly
> supported light rail. They all wanted it because the
> figured that "the OTHER guy" would stop driving his
> car, and take light rail, and get the heck off the freeway
> so that THEY could drive an uncongested freeway.
>
> Needless to say, the freeway congestion did NOT go away.
>
> I would ask our colleague that if he feels that it would
> be too much trouble for him to split his legacy block
> to be able to sell off part of it under a liberalized
> transfer policy, doesn't he think that everyone else with
> a legacy block is going to feel the same way? Why is
> he special? And if every other legacy holder feels this
> way, then where exactly are these IPv4 blocks going to
> come from that will be sold through a liberalized transfer
> policy, that will "extend the life of IPv4" as he puts it.
>
> In short, he meticulously explains why a liberalized transfer
> policy would do absolutely nothing to help him return his
> unused IPv4 space to the free pool, then proceeds to
> claim that we need a liberalized transfer policy to enable
> more IPv4 to be returned to the free pool!!!
>
> I can't think of a more damming example of why a liberalized
> transfer policy would be about as useful as teats on a boar.

You are right, we're not special, a liberalized transfer policy will probably not
free up much space. That was one of my points, that I obviously didn't
hammer hard enough.

But, it might free up a little, and we're going to need every hair-brained Wile
E. Coyote idea we can come up with to get to keep IPv4 going long enough
to get everyone on to IPv6. Because unlike Wile E. Coyote, if the Internet
falls off the cliff we not going to get up and walk away.

I'll put it back on you, are you sure we can get IPv6 fully deployed before
IPv4 crashes into the wall, I'm not. We (UMN) will be there but we've been
working on it for a long time. I don't think everyone will be.

If we have a transfer policy that might free up a little space, it is not going to
save us in the long term, nor will NAT, only IPv6 can do that. But it could
help build a bridge, and if IPv4 addresses went for $1000 an address it sure
would make a bigger incentive to move to IPv6 and hopefully push IPv6 up
the priority list for IT departments everywhere. So if only for that reason, it
might help to have a transfer policy, to give that extra little push.

I also think the longer we debate a transfer policy, the more the message
that IPv6 is the only true hope get diluted.

=======================================================
David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815
2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818
=======================================================

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

Owen DeLong — 2008-08-29T22:17:39Z

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.

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

Tom Vest — 2008-08-29T21:32:21Z

So the question then becomes: which transition order(s)/sequence(s)
are possible vs. impossible given the compatibility gap and assuming
the same basic mix of industry players -- and which ones are more vs.
less likely given the various customer/provider relationships,
incentives, and opportunities?

TV

On Aug 29, 2008, at 5:17 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.

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

Stephen Sprunk — 2008-08-29T21:22:51Z

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.
>

No, I have pointed out the frame of debate; I am not saying either side
is correct, because the economic and technical factors will vary for
each organization as well as over time. That is why I'm leaning
_towards_ the transfer policy, because it gives each org the flexibility
of deciding for itself when to make the transition and how, depending on
how it assesses the factors in its particular situation.

> 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?
>

Your question presupposes that there exist people who think it is best
to stay on IPv4+NAT forever. I have seen no evidence that such exist,
therefore I assumed your question was about people who are trying to
stretch out or delay the transition.

> Surely you do better than that!
>
> The transition would happen tomorrow if people just went and did the work.
>

What people? Which 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.
>

That's not what I see. The vendors aren't making the products necessary
because customers aren't asking for them and there is financial
incentive to _not_ do work that people won't pay extra for. The
customers aren't asking yet because they don't want to pay extra for
features they don't yet need. There is no need yet because the Internet
hasn't collapsed yet.

Believe me, I've tried to get my employer to implement IPv6, and the
reality is that, so far, we have lost zero sales because we didn't have
it, while other features competing for the same developers _would_ have
lost us sales if we didn't deliver them. Until a non-trivial number of
our customers start refusing to buy products without IPv6 support, it's
financially irresponsible for us to do the work. The engineer in me
doesn't like that answer, but the stockholder in me takes the results to
the bank...

Calling reality "BS" does not change the fact it's still reality.

> 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?
>

The economics strongly favor that scenario, and that scenario has been
played out several times in the past: nobody is willing to step up and
spend the money to fix things, which gives their non-acting competitors
an financial advantage, so any major change to the Internet must result
from actual failure because that forces _all_ players to act at the same
time.

The financial markets also encourages executives to cut costs today
despite disastrous long-term consequences, because the executives will
rake in tens of millions of dollars in the meantime and then pull the
ripcord on their golden parachute when their choices catch up to them,
leaving the mess to the next round of execs -- or a bankruptcy court --
to sort things out and start the cycle over again.

S

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

Scott Leibrand — 2008-08-29T21:17:49Z

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.
>>

[arin-ppml] About NAT-PT.... (Re: Fantasyland)

Alain Durand — 2008-08-29T21:17:20Z

On 8/29/08 5:14 PM, "bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com"
wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 01:48:48PM -0400, Alain Durand wrote:
>> On 8/29/08 5:13 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" wrote:
>>
>>> So you still want IPv6 for that webcam and most of your peer-to-peer
>>> stuff.
>>
>> Oh, yes... 100% agreed. The point is that DS-lite offers a way to get there.
>>
>> Alain.
>
> as does IVI... and there is at least one more candidate in this field.

Unfortunately, IVI does not help you if you have legacy IPv4 nodes and don't
have any IPv4 addresses for them.

- Alain.

[arin-ppml] About NAT-PT.... (Re: Fantasyland)

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com — 2008-08-29T21:14:05Z

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 01:48:48PM -0400, Alain Durand wrote:
> On 8/29/08 5:13 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" wrote:
>
> > So you still want IPv6 for that webcam and most of your peer-to-peer
> > stuff.
>
> Oh, yes... 100% agreed. The point is that DS-lite offers a way to get there.
>
> Alain.

as does IVI... and there is at least one more candidate in this field.

--bill

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

Paul G. Timmins — 2008-08-29T21:05:35Z

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.
>

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

Scott Leibrand — 2008-08-29T20:59:23Z

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
>

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

Ted Mittelstaedt — 2008-08-29T20:48:17Z

> -----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