[arin-ppml] IPv6 in the Economist

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Mon Jun 9 17:39:15 EDT 2008

Sorry, all for the top post, but I just don't see the point in
a step-by-step refutation.  Others are welcome.

Robin, the problem here is summarized by the old Star Trek quote
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

To put it simply, there are not enough IPv4 addresses available
to use in the heiararchival fashion we have all decided to use on
the Internet for organizing routing, to allow everyone who wants
to be on the Internet to do everything they want to do.

There is no question that for an INDIVIDUAL company, or person, that
IPv6 is a cost.  You have written an article here that discusses the
issue from a technical case, that's all well and good.

By the same token, it is CHEAPER for an individual who happens to
own a car with a plugged catalyatic converter, to simply insert a
long rod and punch out the honeycomb, rather than spend the money
for a new converter.  After all, his action only increases the
amount of pollution an infinitestimal amount compared to all the air
pollution we already have, and after all why should he have to
pay for a catcon if some guy with similar circumstances out in the
hill country where the state doesen't require emissions testing 
doesen't have to?

You forget that you are on a network that has a lot of other people
on it, and some of those people have severe problems due to the
looming shortage of IPv4.  NAT and the other fancy footwork your advocating
isn't going to help them due to the nature of their problems.  And,
once IPv4 DOES runout, the number of people with problems is going
to skyrocket.

Of course, you don't give a God-dammed about those people, do you?
As long as YOU have your IP numbers, screw the rest of the bastards.

Because, that is basically what your saying.

I've been using the Internet since you thought that TCP/IP was
a line you hung clothes on to dry, and I didn't sign on to create
an exclusive club.  Neither did everyone else that helped set it up.
It's a crying shame if your view prevails.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Robin Whittle
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 1:34 PM
> To: PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 in the Economist
> I tried to correct what I saw as errors and omissions in the article:
> http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_i
> d=11482493
> with the following comments.  For more on my Ivip proposal to 
> solve the routing scaling problem, see:
>   http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/
>   - Robin
> The most important error or omission in this article is that 
> it fails to mention that a computer with only an IPv6 address 
> cannot communicate directly with a computer with only IPv4 
> address. Email works fine, and some applications can work via 
> proxy servers or application level gateways. Apart from that, 
> the IPv6 Internet is quite separate from the IPv4 Internet we 
> all use today.
> Many application programs only work with IPv4 and would 
> require a significant rewrite to operate with IPv6 only, or 
> with "dual-stack" IPv4 and IPv6.
> Almost every user needs full IPv4 connectivity, so they need 
> an IPv4 address. There is currently no advantage to having an 
> IPv6 address because essentially every website, server or 
> computer of other end-users is is reachable via IPv4.
> "Nearly 85% of available addresses are already in use;". 1.7B 
> IPv4 addresses are handled by the routing system, of the 3.7B 
> which are available. Of these, probably only a few hundred 
> million are actually used (1).
> By continued use of Network Address Translation (NAT) and 
> finer slicing and dicing of IPv4 space, IPv4 space can be 
> used much more efficiently than at present. For instance, the 
> map-encap proposals - LISP, APT, Ivip and TRRP - currently 
> being developed by the IRTF Routing Research Group (2) would 
> all facilitate much finer and more efficient management of 
> IPv4 space without further burdening the core BGP routing system.
> Windows XP can only perform DNS lookups (required for every 
> IPv4 or IPv6 application) over an IPv4 service.
> Neither Comcast nor any other ISP has figured out how to meet 
> the needs of ordinary end-users with an IPv6-only service. 
> Most games, peer-to-peer and other applications (other than 
> web-browsers and email clients) are IPv4-only.
> Since its inception in the mid-1990s, IPv6 has not met the 
> needs of significant numbers of users or ISPs. The IPv4 
> address shortage won't change this, since for many years to 
> come it will be easier and better to use IPv4 space more 
> intensively than to try to sell end-users an IPv6 service 
> which can't meet their needs and would involve intolerable 
> levels of support calls and customer dissatisfaction even if 
> it met 90% of their needs.
> Robin Whittle Analyst, Paul Budde Communications
> (1) http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/PAPERS/Heidemann08a.pdf,
> http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/host-density-per-prefix/
> (2) 
> http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/RoutingResearchGroup
> _______________________________________________
> 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 the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at 
> info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list