[ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Thu Jul 12 09:43:49 EDT 2007


I already mention this in other threads (may be not in ppml).

IPv6 has been designed to coexist with IPv4 for an undetermined period of
time. It is not expected to run *only* IPv4 since day one, and not all the
stacks actually support this. In fact, many stacks are somehow hybrids
instead of two-stacks, what it means that you can't disable IPv4 (of course
you can let IPv4 "un-configured", which is almost equivalent).

This means that IPv4 will be here for a long time and dual-stack is the main
transition technique. This will change with the time, at least in some
networks, once IPv6 traffic become predominant, among other economic

You always will have, at least for many years, old IPv4 boxes that can't be
upgrades, and the easier way to reach them is if you run dual-stack, at
least in the hosts in any LAN, instead of requiring translation. This
doesn't mean public IPv4 addresses, as in most of the situations, private
IPv4 behind NAT and global IPv6 will make it.

However, the question may be different for whatever is not an end-site LAN
(for instance backbone, access, etc.), as there are already protocols such
as softwires (basically L2TP), that allow you to automatically tunnel
IPv4-in-IPv6 (or in the other way around today in most of the IPv4-only
networks), in order to be able to handle the IPv4-only applications in an
automatic fashion.

This is the case for some big networks (+5.000 sites) that we have where the
initial deployment was completely dual-stack, and then we realized that
because the kind of traffic was becoming predominantly IPv6, and most of the
IPv4 traffic was basically going to Internet thru proxies, it make sense to
turn the proxies dual-stack and carry that inside the complete network as
IPv4-in-IPv6 (up to the proxy), so we had been able to disable IPv4
everywhere (except in the LANs, for both clients and servers).

This is the model that I certainly believe will be the one as IPv6
penetration becomes bigger and bigger, and then as indicated by Kevin, IPv4
will vanish naturally ...

I've introduced the description of this scenario also in a document that
I've circulated a few weeks ago
(http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3004), as I believe
that this will mean less trouble for possible "new" ISPs when IPv4 addresses
are gone or "almost" gone and at the same time will help existing ISPs to
keep growing their networks without the need for asking for more IPv4
addresses to the RIR.


> De: Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com>
> Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> Fecha: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:07:16 -0500
> Para: <PPML at arin.net>
> Conversación: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
> Asunto: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
> 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.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:51 PM
>> To: bill fumerola; 'ARIN PPML'
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On
>> Behalf Of 
>>> bill fumerola
>>> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 1:32 PM
>>> To: 'ARIN PPML'
>>> Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
>>> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 05:09:59PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>>>> OK, then how exactly is this fact an argument AGAINST arin
>>>>> simply removing
>>>>>> these records out of it's whois?  Which is what I am suggesting?
>>>>> who does that hurt? the legacy holders or the rest of the
>> community 
>>>>> trying to use a tool to find out who to contact when that
>> netblock 
>>>>> does something foolish.
>>>>> as a paying ARIN member, i want ARIN to keep track of as much as
>>>>> they're legally, financially, technically allowed to. that WHOIS
>>>>> service is more useful to me, the paying ARIN member, not
>> the legacy holder.
>>>> For now.  What about post-IPv4 runout?
>>> i think you assume that ARIN's IPv4 services will change in
>> some major 
>>> way when that happens. i don't believe the memebership would
>> want that 
>>> change and the IPv6 fees at that point would cover
>> maintanence of those
>>> 'legacy' systems.  i'd imagine ripping the IPv4 components would be
>>> more costly than just maintaining them after any sort of:
>> ipv4 runout 
>>> of addresses by ARIN, ipv6 eclipse of ipv4, ipv4 runout of
>> addresses by 
>>> IANA, etc.
>>> i would want to see the same level of service provided. no
>> difference 
>>> between legacy pre-ARIN holders and paid members.
>> So then if the membership doesen't want IPv4 to be removed
>> from the registries, then what is going to be created is a
>> situation where nobody has any incentive to remove their IPv4
>> reachability, nor remove the ability for their customers to
>> reach IPv4 sites.
>> In short, IPv4 will NEVER "go away"  Your proposing a future
>> were we add IPv6, and nobody ever gives up IPv4 resources.
>> So the Internet merely becomes an Internet of both IPv6 and
>> IPv4, not an Internet of IPv4 only or an Internet of
>> IPv6 only.
>> I'm not debating we could or couldn't do this technically.
>> However, if we do this, then don't you see that ALL IPv4
>> holders, not just the legacy ones, will never have any
>> incentive to drop IPv4.
>> If all of that is OK with you, then why would an existing
>> paying IPv4 holder today who doesen't need numbering, want to
>> bother going to IPv6?  After all you just said everyone will
>> be maintaining their IPv4, so what need is there for an
>> IPv4
>> holder to load up IPv6?  The only incentive I see would be to
>> reach a network that is IPv6 ONLY, such as a network that
>> needs numbering post-IPv4 runout.
>> This puts a terrible burden on these networks because since
>> they are new, they cannot be reached by a lot of the
>> Internet, and it is not likely that they can provide enough
>> of an incentive to get IPv4-only holders to update to reach them.
>> Ted
>> _______________________________________________
>> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy
>> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list