[ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>James Jun
>Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:33 PM
>To: 'ARIN PPML'
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
>
>
>Yes, I am well aware of ARIN keeping whois record of all legacy holders in
>their service region (likewise, 17.0.0.0/8, 3.0.0.0/8, etc, we can
>spend the
>whole summer discussing this string by string and argue over how fast the
>moon moves and etc).
>
>But you advocate that it is ARIN's responsibility: no, other than
>maintaining whois records, it is not, and that is my point in my previous
>email.  ARIN policies do not apply, unless legacy holders voluntarily want
>ARIN policies to apply over them.
>

OK, then how exactly is this fact an argument AGAINST arin simply removing
these records out of it's whois?  Which is what I am suggesting?

>After you enable it, your customers can suddenly talk to both
>worlds until much of the Internet moves over to IPv6, which you can then
>turn off IPv4.

No, I can't.  I think you missed the point.  As long as someone out
there on the Internet is uing ONLY IPv4, then I'm not going to be able
to turn off dual stacking if one of my customers wants to talk to them
or wants them to talk to my customer.  There is none of this "much of" you
seem to
think exists.  I can argue with my customer that "much of" the Internet is
now single IPv6 stacked and his coorespondent on the IPv4-only
network is who is the problem - that will go over like a lead balloon,
my customer will just go to some other ISP.  And most likely it will
be a legacy ISP with a block they have that they aren't paying for.

And if you really honestly believe this then tell me what ratio of
dual-stack to single-IPv4 stack constitutes "much of" and I'll adjust
my suggestion accordingly.  Of course you will probably then argue it's
irrelevant and still shouldn't be done.

Face it, in summary, you don't want IPv4 shut off by any overt action,
you just want to do nothing and your assuming that somehow it will
just stop being used by itself.  That isn't realistic.

>
>Are you advocating that you are going to sue Apple for deprecating support
>for AppleTalk in recent Mac OS X series, because your network continues to
>use old AppleTalk protocol and you're hell bent on keeping it?

No, the opposite.  I'm arguing that Apple SHOULD deprecate support for
Appletalk to try to get people to switch away from it.

ARIN and the RIR's SHOULD deprecate support for the non-paying legacy
IPv4 blocks  to try to get the legacy holders to either sign an RSA
for their IPv4 or go to IPv6.

>How about
>move on like everyone else has, to TCP/IP, in order to support Apple share
>volumes?

EXACTLY, how about having the legacy IPv4 holders move on to IPv6 and
just give up their IPv4 ranges?

>transition technologies.  If you want to create chaos because you are so
>lazy to transition your network to IPv6, then I am sorry that there isn't
>much that people can do for you.
>

Please continue to shout that to every legacy IPv4 holder out there, I
think they need to hear it.

>
>> Letting legacy holders get away witout funding the RIR that
>tracks them is
>> in my opinion, far crazier than any rules I've proposed.  Yet, you accept
>> it.
>
>Because legacy holders got their IP space before ARIN existed, thus RSA and
>ARIN policies do not apply to them.

Then ARIN should simply ignore them, remove all records of who the legacy
blocks are owned by, and not make assignments out of those ranges.  As you
say,
the RSA and ARIN policies don't apply to them.

Ted