[arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transfer policy: whythetriggerdate?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vixie at vix.com [mailto:vixie at vix.com] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 1:57 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transfer policy: 
> whythetriggerdate? 
> 
> 
> > From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net>
> > ...
> > It is a given that making something illegal isn't going to stop it 
> > from happening.  BUT, the idea that making IPv4 private-party to 
> > private-party address transfers sanctioned will not affect the IPv6 
> > uptake rate is simply preposterous.
> > 
> > For the large orgs, there's not going to be enough IPv4 for sale to 
> > meet their needs, so this discussion isn't even on their 
> radar.  But 
> > it does matter to the smaller orgs.  If you make these transfers 
> > sanctioned, there WILL be some smaller orgs who put off 
> IPv6 migration 
> > plans, and purchase more IPv4.
> 
> it seems to me that until the rest of the world has upgraded, 
> then any given org (large or small) who wants to continue 
> growing the externally reachable parts of their network 
> (like, for IP customers) will have to have a supply of new 
> ipv4, even if they're deploying dual-stack at such moments.  

This isn't true.

For example, take AOL. AOL sends out the AOL software that
basically tears out your existing TCP/IP stack, moving dozens
of operating system files into a backup, and replaces it
with their own networking and their own Winsock interface.

That is why there's program incompatabilities with some networking
apps and AOL software.

Someone running AOL who is running a web browser is using
whatever back-end AOL has created.  For all I know it's 
IP Tunnel in Netware IPX.  I CAN tell you though that it is
NOT the normal Windows IP networking stack.

Since AOL has control of the transport protocol they can
make it IPv6 or anything else they wanted, for that matter.

It's so well-known in the industry that AOL uses a massive
bank of proxy servers that I shouldn't even have to mention
it, but I will just in case.  Those could easily be IPv6->IPv4
proxies if AOL wanted them to be.

> this has two
> corollaries:
> 
> 1. the time to dual-stack is $NOW, and arin should 
> investigate new policies that require proof of dual-stack 
> intent and action $NOW for ipv4 allocations starting $NOW; and,
> 
> 2. the problem (as always) is other people's networks, and 
> all arguments of the form "ipv4's lifetime should not be 
> extended" boil down to "it is bad for $ME if $OTHER_PEOPLE 
> aren't forced to run dual-stack and get ipv6 running."
> 

Any argument can be boiled down to the
form "it is bad for $ME if $OTHER_PEOPLE..."

That does not mean that this argument is the primary motivator
for any one person in the $ME group.

But, even assuming that it is,

Do I really care that everyone in the Pro-IPv6 group is
operating out of greedly self-interest?

Not anymore than I care that everyone in the pro-mass transit
and pro-bicycle camps are operating out of greedy self-interest
of wanting to get everyone else off the freeways and onto busses or
bicycles, because they really want to have the freeway to themselves.

And, nor for that matter, that I care that the US Constitution
was written out of the greedy-self-interest of landed gentry
who didn't want to pay taxes to England.

In either case, we get the network switched to IPv6 or the
busses full or the bicycle lanes striped on the road, or
a nation created.

Ted