[arin-ppml] IANA IPv4 /8 burn rate....

[Scott Leibrand]

Electric cars are better than gasoline ones.  Electric cars are available 
today, and fully compatible with the existing road system.  Therefore, we 
should stop selling gasoline cars and go all electric.

Oh, electric cars are too expensive, you say?  And there's no charging 
stations where you live?  Well that's OK, because you'll be better off in 
the long run.

-Scott

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org] 
>> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:42 PM
>> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Cc: 'Scott Leibrand'; 'Alain Durand'; 'ARIN PPML'
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IANA IPv4 /8 burn rate....
>>
>>
>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>   Everyone who assumes that moving to IPv6 would be better 
>> has I think 
>>> already provided a boatload of arguments as to why their 
>> way would be 
>>> better.
>>>
>>>   But I have not really heard any arguments from the people 
>> who want 
>>> to stay with IPv4 as to why their way would be better.
>>>   
>> I think that answer is simple: the short-term cost of adding 
>> more NAT is 
>> lower than the short-term cost of moving everything to IPv6.  
>> There's a 
>> lot of stuff that _still_ doesn't work (well or at all) with IPv6, 
>> despite over a decade of work and sweeping claims by IPv6 
>> supporters, so 
>> the cost of the latter option isn't even calculable because it's not 
>> possible -- but even the parts that are possible will 
>> undoubtedly cost 
>> more, in the short term, than just tossing a few more NAT 
>> boxes into the 
>> network.
>>
>> I think everyone is in agreement that the long-term costs of IPv6 are 
>> cheaper than IPv4+NAT; what we're really debating is if and when that 
>> transition will happen and what to do in the meantime.
>>
> 
> If the long term costs of IPv6 are cheaper that is a huge argument
> against tossing a few more NAT boxes into the network.  In short
> you have just successfully argued one of the many points AGAINST
> a liberalized transfer policy, and FOR moving to IPv6 asap, that
> is, why IPv6 is better.
> 
> I had asked for arguments from the people who want to stay with IPv4
> as to why their way would be better, and the best you can come
> up with so far is to take an argument saying the IPv4 way would
> be worse, and turn it upside down and paint it a different color
> and hope I wouldn't notice this?
> 
> Surely you do better than that!
> 
> The transition would happen tomorrow if people just went and did the work.
> Unfortunately the IPv6 transition is something that everyone doing it
> is dependent on everyone else doing their bit.  The end users can't
> switch unless they get native IPv6 from their ISPs, and they can't
> use a proxy because an IPv4->IPv6 proxy standard is still under debate.
> The ISP's can't switch until their feeds switch, and those can't switch
> until their peers switch, and their peers are probably the worst of all.
> 
> You get 3 backbones like Sprint, ATT & MCI in the room and MCI will
> say they can't go to IPv6 until Sprint does, and Sprint will say
> they can't go to IPv6 until ATT does, and ATT says they can't go to
> IPv6 until MCI does.
> 
> If you're a father of children surely you will have recognized this
> as classic textbook BSing by now.
> 
> Claims that IPv6 is not ready yet are EXACTLY LIKE claims that
> Microsoft Windows Vista isn't ready yet.  They are simply bogus
> nonsense excuses that people make because IPv4 is a comfortable
> pair of old broken-in shoes, and IPv6 is the brand new pair of
> shiny, creaky, squeaky shoes.  Yes the new shoes will take some
> breaking in and you will get some sores for a bit until you 
> adjust.  But how long are you going to keep putting tape or whatever
> on the old shoes?  Until they fall apart and the Internet stops working?
> 
> Ted
>