[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
>Kevin Kargel
>Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:07 PM
>To: PPML at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
>
>
>Why is there such a big push to drop IPv4? 

Didn't you read John's posting yesterday?

"If you've got a way to keep IPv4 running, and still maintain
   the enough hierarchy to keep global routing running, then
   it's time to enter the spotlight and share the secret.  There
   is no doubt that its so much easier for us all to stay on IPv4
   then to move to IPv6, we just don't know how to do it, and
   still keep the Internet running"

>Is there a reason that v4
>and v6 can't operate concurrently in perpetuity?

Yes.  Because they won't in the long term.  Consider the common RJ45
plastic crimp plug.
Why is it used for all different forms of Ethernet speeds, T1's, and
many other applications?  Because it is senseless to have multiple
incompatible connectors, it drives up prices for the connectors as
well as the tooling needed to crimp them on.

Time was that many T1 connectors were DB15.  It was a lot of trouble to
continually build cables with RJ45 on one end and DB15 on the other,
so the market eventually stopped accepting DB15.

If your goal is to have IPv4 and IPv6 operate concurrently in
perpetuity on the Internet you will be ultimately stymied.  But until
then it will be more costly to run both concurrent, and so it is to
our advantage to make the concurrent period as short as possible.

>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?  
>

How do you foster something that isn't going to be available to new
people in a few years?

> 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.
>

A rather strange statement because the people ARE being forced anyway.
It is kind of like saying that 911 didn't force the US to invade
Afganistan.  Of course it did.  But I suppose there are those few
ultraliberals who comfort themselves by repeating that.

Ted