[ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-4

[Mury Johnson]

> It is not clear to me that the public has instructed ARIN to
> encourage the adoption of IPv6.  My interpretation is that ARIN
> should be making IPv6 available, but not advocating.

Okay, let's assume the public hasn't instructed ARIN to encourage IPv6
adoption.

1) Should ARIN take it's cue from the public?  Or should ARIN, the AC, the
BOD, and the ARIN members be making more informed decisions in regards to
the types and amounts of IP allocations?  Isn't this the madate of ARIN?

2) What is the objection to IPv6?  Your comment hints at the "public"
thinking moving to IPv6 is a bad idea.

3) You mention that it is your "interpretation".  What is that an
interpretation of?

> Would you, as an ISP, make a significant commitment to IPv6 if you
> knew it was "No payments until Memorial Day 2008?"  I will confess
> to a certain fear as Treasurer that IPv6 will skyrocket one year,
> and our costs will skyrocket proportionately, and the public and/or
> the members will scream when we finally begin collecting the fees
> that have been waived for so long.

You certainly can speak to this much more intelligently than I can.  I do
not understand the cost structure of ARIN.  Do the costs really increase
proportionately?  I don't know.  I have to admit I find it hard to
believe, but I obviously do not know.

So, as I mentioned before waive the fees for IPv6 as long as allocatee is
paying for IPv4 blocks.  I don't think the public can scream if they have
been told in advance that the fees are waived until X date.

> > Or, how about every current customer that is already paying
> > ARIN fees for IPv4 can get a free IPv6 block?
>
> That is the current policy. IPv6 is free (fee is waived) for new
> users, and:
>
> 	IPv6 fees will not be charged to organizations that are
> 	current ARIN IPv4 subscription holders.
>
> http://www.arin.net/registration/fee_schedule.html#ipv6_allocation
>
> It's either free or it's free.

I understood that to mean they are free until the waiver is up.  In other
words, when the waiver is up the organization will have to pay for both
IPv4 and IPv6 blocks.  Am I incorrect?

> It seems to me that the problem is not on the supply side, but the
> demand side.  Making it freer isn't going to make anybody want it
> more.  If I'm wrong, and a few ISPs will say, "The only thing keeping
> me from deploying IPv6 is the fees I'll see next year" I'd
> discuss it with the Finance Committee and the Board.  Since IPv6 is
> waived for IPv4 subscribers, that's a small constituency, though.

I guess that gets right to the heart of the problem I tried to describe
and it also goes against what you feared above.  If IPv6 blocks are easy
to obtain it *could* jumpstart the IPv6 deployment.  And as you said above
you fear that it could break ARIN's bank by having a rush on IPv6.  I
don't know.  It sounds like you are not so sure either.  Can you set aside
X number of IPv6 blocks, so if there is a rush it is limited?

> Final note for us as we evaluate the comments received during Last
> Call:  Should we interpret your comments as meaning you do not support
> policy proposal 2003-4 as currently written?

Tough question.  To be honest I really don't care that much for myself or
for my businesses.  We are going to be fine either way.  I'm just trying
to contribute to what I think is a good idea.

Do I support a waterdowned version?  It's better than nothing, but if by
supporting it as it stands does that sacrifice the chance to make further
improvements down the road?

I guess if my vote actually counted I'd abstain.  When it comes down to it
the ARIN region isn't ready to deal with IPv6.  It's probably better to
wait until there is some industry and consumer pressure to do something.
The world seems to work better when it's under the gun, instead of trying
to prepare for something.

Mury