[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
>bill fumerola
>Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 1:32 PM
>To: 'ARIN PPML'
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
>
>
>On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 05:09:59PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> >> 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?
>> >
>> >who does that hurt? the legacy holders or the rest of the community
>> >trying to use a tool to find out who to contact when that netblock does
>> >something foolish.
>> >
>> >as a paying ARIN member, i want ARIN to keep track of as much as they're
>> >legally, financially, technically allowed to. that WHOIS service is more
>> >useful to me, the paying ARIN member, not the legacy holder.
>>
>> For now.  What about post-IPv4 runout?
>
>i think you assume that ARIN's IPv4 services will change in some major
>way when that happens. i don't believe the memebership would want that
>change and the IPv6 fees at that point would cover maintanence of those
>'legacy' systems.  i'd imagine ripping the IPv4 components would be more
>costly than just maintaining them after any sort of: ipv4 runout of
>addresses by ARIN, ipv6 eclipse of ipv4, ipv4 runout of addresses by
>IANA, etc.
>
>i would want to see the same level of service provided. no difference
>between legacy pre-ARIN holders and paid members.

So then if the membership doesen't want IPv4 to be removed from the
registries,
then what is going to be created is a situation where nobody has any
incentive
to remove their IPv4 reachability, nor remove the ability for their
customers
to reach IPv4 sites.

In short, IPv4 will NEVER "go away"  Your proposing a future were we add
IPv6,
and nobody ever gives up IPv4 resources.  So the Internet merely becomes an
Internet of both IPv6 and IPv4, not an Internet of IPv4 only or an Internet
of
IPv6 only.

I'm not debating we could or couldn't do this technically.

However, if we do this, then don't you see that ALL IPv4 holders, not just
the
legacy ones, will never have any incentive to drop IPv4.

If all of that is OK with you, then why would an existing paying IPv4 holder
today
who doesen't need numbering, want to bother going to IPv6?  After all you
just
said everyone will be maintaining their IPv4, so what need is there for an
IPv4
holder to load up IPv6?  The only incentive I see would be to reach a
network
that is IPv6 ONLY, such as a network that needs numbering post-IPv4 runout.
This puts a terrible burden on these networks because since they are new,
they
cannot be reached by a lot of the Internet, and it is not likely that they
can
provide enough of an incentive to get IPv4-only holders to update to reach
them.

Ted