[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: PIv6 for legacy holders with

[Scott Beuker]

Comments below...

> > I oppose the policy proposal because all it really serves to do is 
> > grandfather the special treatment of legacy IPv4 space holders into 
> > the IPv6 world. I was very much looking forward to the fresh start 
> > IPv6 offered, where everyone would qualify for their 
> address space on 
> > the same merits as everyone else.
> 
> As Ted pointed out recently, there is currently a 
> disincentive for legacy holders to implement IPv6 at all 
> versus dragging out IPv4 as long as they can.

There's also currently many disincentives for me to move to IPv6, one
of which is that table bloat is going to make it costly to support two
tables for both IPv4 and IPv6, requiring upgrades. 

We all have "disincentives" for going to IPv6, and we all have to deal
with them. In this case, it's not fair to ask the community at large
to shoulder the burden for the sake of this small group.

> One simple way to remove this disincentive would be to offer 
> IPv6 addresses to legacy holders on the same terms as their 
> IPv4 addresses, or maybe not the same but something that 
> removes or lessens the disincentive.

While it would be nice to give a block to everyone who wants it, there
are very real technical reasons this simply can't happen. A line has
been drawn by the community as a whole. This proposal side steps the
line, without a truly compelling reason, in my opinion.

> Taking this point a little further, it's largely the legacies 
> that got IPv4 to take off and got the Internet built, they 
> could be the ones to do the same for IPv6 too perhaps if 
> given an incentive rather than a disincentive.

I'm sick of this argument, I've been hearing it since I got involved
in ARIN. Every time the legacy holders want something, someone has to
play the "we built the Internet" card. Quite frankly, I think this
argument is bunk, but that whole discussion is totally irrelevant
so I'm going to stop there. People who buy this argument are beyond
being swayed by rational discussion anyway.

Scott Beuker