[ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6

[Paul Vixie]

scott wrote:

> ...  An IPv4 allocation is usually sized for 6 months of growth, so this
> proposal would require all growing IP networks to deploy IPv6 within 6
> months, instead of allowing them to do so over the next few years (between
> now and when they can no longer grow with IPv4).  I don't know about you,
> but such a mandate would significantly increase our cost of deploying IPv6,
> for no real benefit.

if you insist on using ipv4 until the moment you can't grow, you're hurting
yourself and also others, assuming you hit the date exactly.  however, you'll
miss the date by a few months in some direction, and the date will move around
as we get closer to it.  a hard cut isn't feasible unless you're comfortable
with a couple of flat or down quarters while you figure out which bets pay off
and which ones cost you.

if you bring ipv6 up in parallel earlier than the moment you can't grow with
v4, then you'll be sitting pretty when others less prepared than you win the
race to the bottom of the IPv4 pile.  and you'll be part of the equation in
other folks' games theories that tells them it's safe to deploy earlier since
they'll have at least internap to talk to.

so six months from next allocation seems draconian.  but when IPv4 enters its
last year of unallocated pile, i predict that this community will scream for
withholding new IPv4 for anyone who can't prove that they've already started
deploying IPv6.  so, maybe the time to actually do it isn't today, but please
don't wait for the depletion event.  if you don't like six months, propose
something that seems realistic and achievable for internap.

paul

ps. i'm not speaking as an arin trustee in this message.