[arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transferpolicy: whythetriggerdate?
jmaimon at chl.com
Thu Jun 26 08:53:14 EDT 2008
Lee Dilkie wrote:
> Once enough folks are dual-stacked,
> then v6-only can survive on it's own merits (years away, but we have to
> plan the route).
This is exactly why dual stack as a migration strategy is dead.
Since there is no inherent benefit for an ipv4 host to dual stack, its
all pain and no gain. Therefore it suffers from chicken-egg, leading to
contortions and coercions attempts to jumpstart.
Thats the wrong approach. The only way to get this done is to get people
to want to get it done.
As you acknowledge above, dual stack migration needs years more time
before ipv6 only hosts can/will be safely deployed. And its not like
dual stacked migration hasnt been planned and trumpeted for years
already. Witness the current (lack of) progress for the odds of its success.
Projected runout doesnt give much time, hence the transfer market
In fact, dual stack's only hope for voluntary widespread deployment is
increasing utilization of ipv6 only hosts with gateways and translation.
Behold egg followed by chicken hatching.
Proponents of dual stack as a migration strategy must believe either:
a) the transfer market will extend ipv4 lifetime long enough to allow
dual stack migration to ipv6 to succeed (where it hasnt so far).
b) dual stack migration will happen sometime between now and runout,
either because of, or indifference of, or in spite of, runout.
Only the dual stack "because of" segment is logically required to be
against the transfer market due to the belief it will impede progress to
Others seem to be opposed to the transfer market for a variety of other
- too much effort for too little return
- rewarding bad actors
- routing table bloat
- price skyrocketing
- regulatory interference
- will slow progress to ipv6
More information about the ARIN-PPML