[arin-ppml] "Millions of Internet Addresses Are LyingIdle" (slashdot)

[Ron Cleven]

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>>Until and unless someone can describe, in simple layman's 
>>terms, a rational transition plan to IPv6, I don't see it happening.
> 
> 
> The laymen have already transitioned to IPv6.
> 

Very cute.

> 
>>1) What are the largest barriers that will prevent widescale 
>>adoption of
>>IPv6 in the next 12 months or whatever timeframe
> 
> 
> ISPs.
> 

Also very cute, but, of course, you know it is a hopelessly incomplete 
answer to the question.


> 
>>2) How can the transition be simplified?
> 
> 
> It can't. Changing a big network that carries millions of dollars
> worth of traffic every day is never simple.
> 

Ok, I'll accept that answer for now.  My gut tells me, however, that 
simply not enough thought has gone into it.

> 
>>3) Most importantly, how can the transition be incentified?
> 
> 
> By pushing requests up the supply chain which is one thing that
> governments are trying to do by mandating that publicly funded 
> agencies begin migrating to IPv6.
> 

Ok, after we get all those publicly-funded agencies to IPv6, then all we 
have to worry about is all the rest of the Internet.


> 
>>There are a lot of smart people on this list, but you need to 
>>step back from your techno-jargon and put your collective 
>>brains to use to deal with practical issues.
> 
> 
> Why? 

Why should we bother to deal with practical issues?  I guess it is 
outside the scope of ARIN to be practical?  Sigh.  Come to think of it, 
that would explain the idiotic economies-of-scale ARIN established for 
IPv4 allocations.


It might be good for society if lots of ISPs go bankrupt
> because they hit a brick wall and are unable to grow their
> networks two to three years from now, just as the economic
> recovery picks up steam. We don't need everybody to do the
> right thing. In fact, if only a dozen national/regional ISPs
> do the right thing, it will probably be good enough because
> they will snap up the assets of their competition in three 
> years and roll out more of their successful IPv6 deployment.
> 

I totally agree.  I am completely against small businesses and the 
innovation they bring to the market-place.

> 
>>over it.  This should be a technical battle, not a legal one.
> 
> 
> Wrong story. This is ARIN, not a place for technical battles,
> but a place for cost-recovery, stewardship, and prudent 
> policies.
> 

I'm making notes so I don't make that mistake again.  This is ARIN, so 
we should never talk about anything practical or technical.  Wait, is it 
possible to be prudent without being practical?


> 
>>Anyway, once the renewal costs were equalized, then ARIN, et 
>>al, should ratchet up those annual renewal costs until IPv4 
>>address space usage reaches steady-state.  This would not 
>>solve the transition issues, but it would provide the 
>>economic incentive for all you really smart people to figure it out.
> 
> 
> I fear that such action would simply create huge economic incentives
> for someone to privatize ARIN in such a way that they make a huge
> personal fortune from the piles of cash which you want to send in.
> 
> This is getting more like a Slashdot thread every second...
> 


Wow, it appears I really hit a nerve.  Mandate that the money be sent to 
charity or use it to build 200-foot dikes around New Orleans.  Or use it 
to buy back the legacy space.  Obviously nobody on this list cares about 
establishing simple market-based incentives to get IPv6 moving.