[ppml] those pesky users...

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 4:17 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: ARIN PPML
>Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users...
>

>
>Um, duh?
>
>IPv4-only and IPv6-only hosts can't talk to each other.  The transition
>model, which has been well-documented for over a decade now, has _always_
>been that everyone goes to dual-stack, and when that's done everyone goes
>back and turns off IPv4.  There has never been a plan in place to go
>directly from one to the other without dual-stacking.
>

Yes I know which is why I said in the future IF we switch to IPv6 then
everyone WILL IPv6 who has IPv4 assigned.

Sure I am ignoring internal use of IPv4 here for hosts that only connect
to stuff inside IPv4 networks and will never go outside of those networks.
Ultimately those internal IPv4 networks will get smaller and smaller and
be replaced by IPv6 once the Internet is over on IPv6, those hosts will
not go away, though.

>
>> It's better now to just get rid of it. I believe there is sufficient
>> proof that monetary incentives have not encouraged much growth in
>> IPv6 assignments.  Just assign everyone IPv6 and be done with it.
>
>So you're simultaneously proposing that ARIN allocate/assign resources to
>people who haven't requested them _and_ that ARIN then bill people for
>having those resources?  I really doubt that combination would pass muster
>with legal counsel.
>

No, I am saying essentially go through all documents that have the
word "IPv4 address" and "IPv6 address" and replace it with "IP address"

You are enormously hung up on the idea that IPv4 and IPv6 are technically
different and this matters from a tracking standpoint.

What ARIN and the RIR's do is track IP addresses.  IPv4 and IPv6 are
IP addresses.  They do not matter one bit from a tracking standpoint,
there are merely "stuff to track"

>
>Of course it's feasible.  But does it make sense?  I say no.  Existing
>policy makes it absolutely trivial for anyone with an existing IPv4
>allocation or assignment to get their first IPv6 allocation or assignment.
>All they have to do is want one enough to fill out a form.  The
>fact is that
>even with zero cost and effectively infinite supply, there is simply no
>demand worth speaking about.
>

Then if there is infinite supply then why argue with just assigning it?

Why is it even necessary to have the problem of IPv6 adoption
related in any way to the RIR's?  If the migration for IPv4 to IPv6
is to dual-stack everything, then just assign both IPv4 and IPv6
when the RIR's hand out IPv4 addresses.  So what if the requestor
doesen't have any need for IPv6 right now.  Eventually he will and
then he will have the stuff assigned already.

>Fix the demand first before you start worrying about policies and fees, as
>we've already done everything possible within ARIN's processes to
>make those
>obstacles nonexistent (to the point we have factions arguing that
>things are
>_too_ easy and need to be tightened).
>

No, what we have are people saying to create demand and the problem will
solve itself.  But what creates demand is a lot of people using IPv6.
But what gets a lot of people using IPv6 is demand.  It's a classic
catch-22 and people who are arguing in favor of keeping the
catch-22 going are merely arguing to keep the status quo.

Boiled down, you have no solution to propose for getting people migrated
so your going to argue that we all do nothing.  It's someone elses
problem.  It's not my problem, it's the other guy who is supposed to be
out there creating demand.  No, I don't know how he's going to create
demand, that's his problem.

Ted