[ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal

[Kevin Kargel]

Why is there such a big push to drop IPv4?  Is there a reason that v4
and v6 can't operate concurrently in perpetuity?  Won't the customers go
where the content is and the content go where the money is?  

I would suggest that if IPv6 is a good thing (and I firmly believe that
it is) then networks will naturally gravitate to IPv6.  That being the
case then let IPv4 die a natural death of attrition.  There is no need
to murder it outright.

If in fact IPv4 continues to survive and thrive alongside IPv6 wouldn't
that very fact demonstrate the need to keep it going and foster it?  

It sounds like a lot of people have so little faith in the value of IPv6
that they for some odd reason cinsider IPv4 a threat.   If IPv6 is
better than IPv4 then people will use it.  If it isn't then they will
stay where they are.  I see no reason to 'force' people to switch.  They
will move when it is in their best interests to do so for features and
markets.



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:51 PM
> To: bill fumerola; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
> 
> 
> 
> >-----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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy 
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>