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

[James Jun]

> 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.


My concern here is with the merit behind your rationale that, instead of
moving IPv6 FORWARD, that we should artificially regulate, where people will
need to be forced and imprisoned to transition to IPv6 and create a
situation where IPv4 is still what they want.  So instead of moving IPv6
forward, the plan is to create a cynicism around IPv6 where people will WANT
to go back to IPv4 unless they are forced not to by an unneeded regulation.
This is not necessary.

The 'rich gets rich', 'poorer gets poorer' would not happen when everyone
wants IPv6, not be forced into it as you propose; therefore such clause of
argument makes no sense.

And you too, can help to spark interest in IPv6 by consider enabling IPv6
inside your own network today, for your customers, as opposed to proposing a
forced regulation schedule.

ar2.bos>show bgp ipv6 unicast reg _10248_

ar2.bos>


> 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.  


Your notion that the only way to adapt to IPv6 is to set a timeline is
wrong.  Ask carriers why they are not supporting IPv6 today, and their
response is "show us the money and we will."  How do these carriers make
money, by moving bits.  When there is traffic in IPv6, market will adopt,
plain and simple.  And to create traffic for IPv6 is to get application
writers and rest of the IT industry to realize, through mass marketing
effort, that shows IPv4 is ending soon and IPv6 is the preferred industry
solution.

Setting artificial timeline as a matter of policy within IP allocation
authority only exacerbates the problem for ISPs and carriers, and further
confines the boundary of the problem to carrier industries, as opposed to
all participants of the Internet.  We do not need a policy to educate people
that IPv4 is running out; this is best solved by mass marketing effort
coordinated with journalists and industry efforts, not a regulation approach
that oversteps the boundary of RIR's role as acting in stewardship.


James