[ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal

[Michael Sinatra]

Kevin Kargel wrote:
> 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.

The point of dual-stack configurations is to allow v4 and v6 to do just
that--coexist in perpetuity.  Eventually, it will likely become too much
of a pain to support dual stack in every OS codebase, so we should start
to see v6 only OS stacks.  That will allow us to eventually phase out v4
on routers and the like, and eventually, it will fade away.

I think the idea that we will be able to establish a timeline for the
abolition of v4 through a policy process is a bit unrealistic, and
probably not worth our time.  The issues with predicting technological
trends that far in advance need not be restated here.

I think in general, it makes more sense to use carrots instead of
sticks, both with respect to the adoption of v6 and in dealing with
legacy address space holders.  I think the stick approach is way too
risky from everyone's perspective.

michael