[ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>James Jun
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:22 PM
>To: 'Rich Emmings'; ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy
>Proposal
>
>
>> >
>> >I can't add to the discussion, without repeating points raised,
>> >other than to say "opposed" as written.
>>
>
>I am also going to go on record to state that I'm opposed to this proposal.
>While I am an advocate for adoption of IPv6, the artificial timeline is
>unfair to many.  My position is that we ought to continue to work in
>IPv4<->IPv6 transition phase for a smoother rather than artificial T-dates.

So you favor a natural T-date then?

>And once the market speaks for IPv6, let the transition happen naturally as
>market demands.
>

May I remind you that there is no such thing as a "natural transition"
to IPv6.

IPv6 itself was developed as an answer to the expected runout of IPv4.
It did not arise as a natural and logical progression to the TCP/IP
protocol but rather as a response to a single mistake in an assumption
to the protocol design.

For all we know in another 20 years there will be another fundamental
flaw discovered in IPv6 that will necessitate an "internet Protocol
Next Generation" and we will go through this whole thing all over
again when contemplating an IPv6->IP-NG transition.

>There's been a lot of surge of pressure and discussions relating to the
>death of IPv4 or IPv4 space otherwise running out; however discussion to
>allow or encourage people to IPv6 has been little, and had only
>been impeded
>by issues like shim6, unresolved multihoming, etc (which is why the recent
>/48 PI allocation adoption by ARIN was a great step forward to get more
>people to transition to IPv6 IMO).
>

Well, DUH!  Since there is no "artificial T-date" as you put it that
everyone agrees on, people do not feel any pressure to discuss a
post-IPv4 world.

Most people are probably thinking that in the absense of an "artificial
T date" that after IPv4 ruout "I'll just be able to buy what IPv4 I need
off Ebay"

>And to top it off, for some people from a single region to advocate that we
>globally determine a timeline for IPv4 based on expectations is
>unfair, when
>not too many efforts to encourage and market IPv6 had been made.
>

Until a timeline is determined for IPv4 there will be little effort
to encourage and market IPv6.

How do you market something that the need of which hasn't even been
proven?

It is like trying to sell a bio-diesel car based on the idea that
"one day the oil will run out and biodiesel will be the only thing
you can use as a fuel"

Well sure, you will get a few people to buy it.  But most aren't going
to pay attention.

Ted