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

[Robert E. Seastrom]

Lee Dilkie <Lee at dilkie.com> writes:

> I think we all agree that deploying IPv6/dual-stack is a cost with no 
> short term benefit. And it's natural for all parties to want everyone 
> else to bear the cost, themselves excluded. Like government mandated 
> pollution and mileage targets on automobiles, sometimes only an edict 
> will suffice to move all parties to the same level playing field at the 
> same time.
>
> So. What do we propose? That all future IPv4 blocks be deployed by 
> customers/ISPs dual-stack, ARIN grants a matching IPv6 block with each 
> IPv4 grant and insists (checks up) that it be made available to end 
> customers (in an ISP's case?). Until you deploy dual stack, you won't 
> get any more blocks from ARIN?
>
> This is essentially what the US government is doing to vendors, wrt 
> IPv6. I think it's not a bad argument that ARIN should be just as 
> insistent in "encouraging" IPv6 rollout.

I don't think ARIN has the traction to enforce this, and as a member
I'm not keen on ARIN gratuitously blowing its "war chest" on lawsuits
over this sort of thing.

Historically, I've been in favor of making sure everyone has an IPv6
netblock and various outreach programs so that they know what to do
with them.  Beyond that, though...  in the words of Yogi Berra, "if
the fans don't want to come out to the ball park, nobody's gonna stop
'em".

As with many other technologies, there is a substantial last-mover
advantage to going dual-stack or single-v6.  Hard to fix that without
resorting to force, and governments do like to reserve that capability
for themselves alone.

No matter how well-intentioned that idea is, actually trying to put it
in motion is a Bad Plan.

                                        ---Rob