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

[Scott Leibrand]

Sorry, that last statement made very little sense in the context of 
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_5.html

I think it's time for a long weekend.

-Scott

Scott Leibrand wrote:
> FWIW, I just pinged the authors of the APNIC proposal that just got 
> consensus yesterday about proposing it in the ARIN region.  Looks like 
> they're interested if we are, so we should have something on the table for 
> April.
> 
> -Scott
> 
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I believe the proposal that reserves the last N (for some value of N)
>>  addresses for transitional technologies comes much closer to
>> achieving that stated purpose than any transfer policy will.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, that's why the idea of "everyone must convert to IPv6 at the same
>>> time" makes no sense to me.  IPv4 and IPv6 will have to interoperate for
>>> some time, so we need to have policies that continue to make IPv4
>>> available to support such transition mechanisms.
>>>
>>> -Scott
>>>
>>> Paul G. Timmins wrote:
>>>> Biodiesel is available, and works in almost any vehicle that takes
>>>> normal diesel.
>>>> It doesn't use fossil fuels, and in some cases, burns cleaner.
>>>>
>>>> But it doesn't work in cars that take Unleaded Gas.
>>>>
>>>> So we shouldn't use Biodiesel until all cars can use it. That way we
>>>> don't have to worry about compatibility issues.
>>>>
>>>> -Paul
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>>>>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 4:59 PM
>>>>> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>>>>> Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IANA IPv4 /8 burn rate....
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PPML
>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.