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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: James Jun [mailto:james at towardex.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:01 PM
>To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; 'Rich Emmings'; ppml at arin.net
>Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal: 2007-12 IPv4 Countdown Policy
>Proposal
>
>
>>
>> How do you market something that the need of which hasn't even been
>> proven?
>
>Exactly, and it is your position to force it down to everyone when as you
>stated, the protocol's needs have not been proven?  Perhaps we should more
>focus in proving the needs of the protocol before forcing it down on
>everyone by setting artificial time for IPv4 withdrawal.
>

It appears to me that the only way to prove need of IPv6 is to be
able to state with authority that "All usable IPv4 addresses are
currently in use"  Anything else is a prediction of when it will
happen.  And the only way to state that all usable addresses are
in use is to wait until all of them are allocated.  Which goes right
back to the "do nothing until we are out of numbers" answer.

Thus if you are going to insist on proof of need of IPv6 then
your advocating to do nothing, it appears.

If you have other criteria in mind that would constitute proof of
need of IPv6, then what are they?

>I am puzzled as to your exact position on what to do after the
>T-date.  What
>exactly is your position to do after the artificial T-date?  Do you support
>switching to IPv6 by the determined date?  Or are we just declaring that we
>artificially set date for end-of-the-world and letting people
>ponder what to
>do?
>

I think we should switch to IPv6 after the T-date.  However I do not
believe the T-date is as soon as people think because I believe that
reclamation should be tried, and I think there's a lot of IPv4 out
there that could be reclaimed.

I think that NOT switching to IPv6 after the T-date will put anyone
at a disadvantage who needs more IP allocations because on a mixed
IPv4/IPv6 Internet, the paying customers will all demand IPv4 for
servers and suchlike, so as to be as accessible as possible to both
IPv6 and IPv4 clients.  Thus the organizations that are rich and can
afford to twist things to get IPv4, will over time collect the higher
paying customers.  In other words, the rich get richer and the poor
get poorer.

>This proposal is flawed because it offers no solution on what to
>do past the
>artificial IPv4 termination date, nor does it offer any easier solutions on
>how to make IPv6 transition easier, cheaper and more preferable for the
>majority in the industry.  It simply assumes that LIRs would just
>migrate to
>IPv6 simply by threatening them with artificially set timelines.  Don't
>expect every CEO sitting in plane reading those so-called magazines to
>always call their MIS/IT department to ask what the hell happened;
>some will
>resort to frivolous lawsuits.
>

That is OK by me.  While the lawyers are arguing the rest of the Internet
will be switched over to IPv6 and the companies that try suing will become
like what happened to SCO when it tried suing over Linux - nothing more
than amusing sideshows.

It is kind of hard to fund a lawsuit when your not making money because
you refuse to renumber to IPv6 and all your customers have renumbered.

Filing a lawsuit like this is like suing the phone company because they
went to 10-digit dialing.  You have to go to 10-digit dialing yourself
to even talk to your own lawyers, to file the lawsuit that if you win
you won't have to go to 10-digit dialing.  The whole premise kind of
collapses when you consider it.

Ted