[ppml] alternative realities

[Kevin Kargel]

 I have a hard time accepting any philosophy that says "just make it
more expensive because your can".. 

If you have a whole bunch of money that you don't know what to do with I
can give you some good ideas..  but I need every penny I have, so please
quit spending it for me.

What you will do by artificially jacking v4 prices is rape the small
shops and drive them out of business.  Maybe that is your intent, to
leave consumers with nobody to deal with but the mega-ISP's..
personally I think that is a pretty sad way to think about it.  

There is nothing evil about leaving IPv4 in place.  If you don't want to
use it then don't use it.  People will migrate to v6 as content does,
and as hardware evolves to handle it.  This will be a natural and
unavoidable transition.  



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Mark Beland
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:05 PM
> To: David Conrad
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] alternative realities
> 
> I completely agree,
> The hard core capitalists would say let market forces drive 
> the deployment of ipv6. That is to say, I think ARIN is in a 
> position to force the implementation of ipv6, and thats what 
> they should do, work towards making ipv4 more expensive, less 
> practical, or simply 'expire'
> allocations to force rapid uptake of ipv6 so we're not living 
> out the next 20 years in an mixed v4 v6 environment.
> Unless proper planning is done to ensure a smooth migration, 
> what we will see is users demanding either or both ipv4 and 
> ipv6 addresses creating a really big mess..... Not to mention 
> the supposed 'free market' of ipv4 addresses that are liable 
> to be traded as commodities once exhaustion occurs.
>  From where I stand, the question here is whether we choose 
> to plan ahead and take measures to ensure the development of 
> a proper migration strategy that encourages/forces the 
> upgrade to the new technology, or simply let the network 
> operators find their own solutions that may or may not be in 
> the best interest of the community at large.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Conrad wrote:
> > Ted,
> >
> > On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >   
> >> When we see Windows Vista reaching 50% penetration and the "post 
> >> Vista" windows OS at 20% penetration, and the "pre Vista" 
> os's at 30% 
> >> penetration of all Windows desktops, that will then be the time to 
> >> start discussing migration of SOHO end users independently 
> connected 
> >> to ISPs, to IPv6.
> >>     
> >
> > An interesting theory.  But doesn't this assume that the 
> content those 
> > users want to gain access to is also available on IPv6?  
> And why would 
> > those content providers assume the cost of deploying IPv6 
> if there are 
> > no customers to use it?
> >
> > Regards,
> > -drc
> > (who has given up and turned off IPv6 in my laptop because 
> it was too 
> > annoying to wait for IPv6 to fail before falling back to IPv4)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed 
> to the ARIN 
> > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN 
> > Member Services Help Desk at 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 (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact 
> the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you 
> experience any issues.
>