[arin-ppml] Portable address space vs. IPv6 auto-numbering

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 7:17 AM
> To: Robin Whittle
> Cc: PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Portable address space vs. IPv6 
> auto-numbering
> 

> 
> > The transition mechanisms are not there.  The IPv6 Internet doesn't 
> > connect properly to the IPv4 Internet.  People like the 
> IPv4 Internet 
> > because everyone is reachable via it.
> 
> these are plain facts and i agree.  (i wanted to agree to 
> something here.)
> 

I have to disagree.  "People" don't gave a damn about the
transport, they care about the data.  If what they want is
on IPv4, they will use IPv4, if what they want is on IPv6,
they will use IPv6.  If they are only given IPv6 as long
as what they want is available from it, they simply won't
give a damn.

A more correct restatement of what Robin said is:

"People like the Internet because everyone is reachable via it."

If "the Internet" was entirely IPv6 they wouldn't like it
any less.

> as to optimism, jean camp showed some S curves in denver 
> describing adoption of technology, and while a lot of folks 
> didn't understand them, they were well argued and well 
> reasoned, and they give *no* cause for optimism wrt IPv6.  
> so, if provable pessimism about IPv6 were an argument in 
> favour of prolonging the lifetime of IPv4, you'd need look no 
> further than elmore/camp/stephens:
> 
> http://weis2008.econinfosec.org/papers/Elmore.pdf
>

All of this is beside the point, because the argument that
adoption curves of technology have any relation to whether
a technology is ultimately adopted isn't valid.  There are
many technologies that had slow adoption curves that were
ultimately adopted, just as there are many technologies
that had rapid adoption curves that were ultimately discarded.
And advance predictions have a way of being wrong.

As for the argument that a relatively small fraction of the IP
addresses currently advertised are actually in use, well
whether "the market" coughs up those "3.7B which could be advertised"
IPv4 addresses, or whether it doesen't, POST IPv4 runout, is
at this point really just speculation.  We won't know until after
IPv4 runout.

As for other schemes to extend IPv4, such as "selling" them,
I find it very amazing that some of the biggest proponents of
an IPv4 "sales market" as a way of extending the life of IPv4, 
have so little faith in the operation of
the market to find all these dusy old unused IPv4 subnets that
we aren't advertising, post-IPv4 runout.  Once IPv4 is runout,
people who want portable assignments of IPv4 won't be able to
get them, so they will have to settle for non-portable IPv4
assignments from this great, possibly-mythical, pool of 3.7B
unadvertised IP addresses.

So for a number of years "the market" will have a growing number
of ISP's and others who really -want- portable IPv4, but are
stuck with paying a provider for non-portable IPv4.  It seems
perfectly logical to me that once that mass of ISP's and people
who are stuck gets large enough, that will tip the balance to
IPv6 regardless of it's deficiencies.

Ted