[arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transfer policy: why the triggerdate?

[Paul Vixie]

> In the time frame where IPv4 addresses will run out, we are only talking
> about companies who deploy IPv6 services in addition to their existing
> services.

if what they need to do is create new endpoints that need global reachability
to existing endpoints, then deploying ipv6 is all cost no benefit.  the cases
where someone only needs limited reachability to themselves and their partners
is generally being handled with IPv4 RFC1918 space today, and while ipv6 makes
that better, the betterness in that case does not relieve any pressure on the
non-RFC1918 ipv4 pool.

> > the rational individual choice for most companies has been 
> > some mixture of (wait-and-see and/or hoard). 
> 
> I disagree that this is the rational choice. My view is that this is the
> fool's choice. The rational move is to fully deploy IPv6 internally in a lab
> environment, roll all the support software changes required into ongoing
> software upgrade projects, and then move this into a small-scale production
> environment with "friendly" customers, ...

there are not enough ipv6-friendly customers, simply because there are not
already enough ipv6-reachable endpoints.  pulling oneself up by one's own
bootstraps may sound wonderful but it doesn't actually work.  in the long
run, incorporating ipv6 into an organization's technology DNA is the rational
choice, but we're not in the long run yet, and there are more costs and
disadvantages than there are benefits and advantages to being a first mover,
unless you're helping create the basic IPv6 technology (as in ISC's case).

> You DNS gurus do love to post the output of "dig" but this is meaningless to
> me. I think it might be saying that we outsource our corporate email service
> but I'm not sure.

it means if i only had ipv6, i could not send you e-mail today.  thanks for
calling me a dns guru, you made my day, even if other employees of ISC have
to clean their keyboards after explosively laughing coffee out their noses.

> > isc.org's network has been dual-stack for years.  what's bt.com's plan?
> 
> BT's plan is as complex as the dozen or so IP networks that we operate.  A
> lot of network operators are in the same boat, still running 3 or 5 or 10 IP
> networks that result from various M&A activity and/or attempts to integrate
> some networks into a merged network.

so, it's a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSBNT5WKizg">hairball</a>?

> Fact is that there are customers on these networks so we like to go slow and
> make sure the service keeps running. That is why you hear so little about
> IPv6 from the bigger networks, because they are easing into it in a way that
> does not disrupt any existing customers.
> 
> --Michael Dillon

i think we all like our customers.  but bt.com could show some solidarity for
the long-term rational choices we'd like folks to make, if you'd make all of
your corporate I.T. resources ipv6-reachable, and make all of your corporate
I.T. desktops ipv6-capable.  that's in addition to the technology DNA infusion
you're describing, so that your company will be well positioned once everybody
else has also added ipv6 to their products and services.

paul