[ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders

[Dean Anderson]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> >Second, the Legacy holders have an agreement which ARIN doesn't have a
> >right to break or modify. ARIN is the custodian of the records, not the
> >owner of the records.
> >
> 
> ONLY for IPv4 records.

No. ARIN doesn't own the IPv6 records either. What part of 'custodian of
records' don't you understand?  If the DoC/IANA selects a successor to
ARIN, ARIN has to give the records to the successor, just like SRI
turned over records to NSI, and NSI turned over records to ARIN.

IANA/DoC is the authority ultimately in charge of IPv6 delegations as
well.  Or are you disputing that?

> > ARIN has no standing and no justification to interfere with those
> > prior agreements.
> 
> Incorrect.  If IPv4 becomes a menace on the Internet then ARIN has to
> act to assist in removing it.

"IPv4 a menace to the internet" ???  Now I've heard everything.

> If IPv4 becomes fragmented and inflates the route table is must be
> removed.

 "route table fragmented and inflated by IPv4"???  Let see: IPv4 has 32
bits, IPv6 has 128bits. Which is going to inflate the route table most?  
Each route is 4 times larger, and we expect more IPv6 routes.

I think it won't be long until IPv4 takes up a small fraction of router
memory:  200,000 IPv6 routes take up more memory than 200,000 IPv4
routes. People seem to anticipate that IPv6 will probably see several
million routes, while IPv4 might not ever see 400,000.  It will never be
_necessary_ to remove IPv4, and it will probably never ever go away. FAX
was supposed to go away many years ago. People still use dialup.  
Useful tools never really go away.

> IPv4 is ALREADY a block to widespread adoption of IPv6.  If we had no
> IPv4 we would all run to adopt IPv6.

Riiiigggt.  Without IPv4, there would be no adoption of IPv6.  We'd all
be running NetBEUI or Novell, or DECnet, or maybe IBM's network (name
escapes me now--LU6.2 is all I can recall)  If you really think IPv4
blocks IPv6, then I think you really, fundamentally, misunderstand the
technology lifecycle and how adoption works.

If you read RFC4038, you'd know that IPv4 isn't a block on IPv6, but is
enabling IPv6.  But this proposal isn't about promoting IPv6 adoption.  
Legacy holders aren't preventing IPv6 adoption.

> >The true purpose of this proposal is not outreach, nor identification
> >of abandoned delegations. Those purposes could be carried out by a
> >newsletter, and those purposes are also not unique to Legacy blocks,
> >but are relevant to all blocks.  So, when the legitimate purposes are
> >completely and better served by alternate means, what does that mean
> >for the purpose of this proposal?
> 
> It means you must either start employing those alternate means or you
> must adopt this proposal.  One or the other.  But you cannot simply
> sit on your hands and do nothing.

No: we certainly _CAN_ do the same thing we've done for the last 20+
years.  There is no crisis here that requires quick action. Your
"urgency" also sounds reminiscent of SORBS, but that was a trick.  

But I am inclined to think that a newsletter every 6 months or year,
monitored for returns is probably a "good thing", probably not very
expensive, and probably something welcomed by all.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000