[ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6

[Scott Leibrand]

Paul Vixie wrote:
> 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.
>   

Of course.  I think most/all of the operators on this list understand 
the necessity of being ready to use IPv6 (for some definition of 
"ready") before IPv4 exhaustion hits.  And, like us, I suspect most 
operators have been going after the low-hanging fruit, making sure new 
hardware supports IPv6, getting their allocation/assignment from ARIN, 
etc.  As exhaustion nears, we'll need to start reaching a little higher, 
and even bring out the step-ladders, but I don't anticipate we'll need 
bucket-trucks for awhile.

> 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.  

Yep.  And if that's done as part of a sensible proposal like "Soft 
Landing", that's entirely reasonable and something I'd support.

-Scott