[arin-ppml] [was Re: Millions of slashdotters are idle]
Howard, W. Lee
Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com
Wed Oct 22 14:35:32 EDT 2008
> >>> Obviously nobody on this list cares about establishing
> simple market-based incentives to get IPv6 moving.
> >> That is not ARIN's job.
I should've chimed in a couple of messages ago; ARIN's job is
not to establish market-based incentives for anything. There's
nothing inherently wrong with doing so, it's just that we'd
need community consensus that we should do so. To date, there
has not been member consensus that ARIN should increase fees
by order(s) of magnitude in order to drive organizations away
> > This must be ARINv4 list. Is there an ARINv6 list? How
> did all that
> > IPv6 crap get on the ARIN.NET web site?
> ARIN is chartered to steward number resources; it is not
> chartered to promote one type of resource over the others.
> Mr. Curran has made that quite clear in past discussions.
Well, the Board has said that while you are quite welcome to
continue using any IPv4 addresses that are assigned/allocated
to you, you should plan to use IPv6 soon, if you will need
more addresses later. Or even if you want to be reachable or
to reach people who only get IPv6 addresses later.
I don't think we'll say that IPv6 is better than IPv4, but I
do think we have a responsibility to warn everyone about some
changes that will be happening in the not-too-distant future,
and suggest actions in preparation.
> > I forgot about your previous point that ARIN does not worry
> about any solutions being practical. Hence, I compounded my
> error, as obviously using simple market-based incentives to
> get IPv6 moving falls dangerously into the realm of the practical.
> ARIN already _does_ offer incentives (through policy and fee
> schedule) for IPv6 adoption, and IMHO that is already leaning
> a bit over the line.
In the cases of fee waivers, we were pretty strongly urged to make
sure that fees would not be a disincentive to IPv6 adoption. You
may note that the amount of IPv6 fee waived is declining again at
the end of the year--get yours now!
> > Don't worry, I promise I will never make any more suggestions that
> > violate that tenet. Heaven help us if someone (as another
> example of
> > such stupidity) actually suggested that ARIN would phase out IPv4
> > allocations to organizations who do not, in parallel, support IPv6
> IMHO, that would not meet ARIN's responsibility of stewardship for the
> IPv4 space. Incentives are one thing, but punishment is
> quite another.
There was a proposal along those lines,
but the author withdrew it before it had a chance to be discussed at a
IMHO. One could argue:
Good stewardship on behalf of the community means allocating to
those who will be good stewards. Anyone who is not preparing to
avoid future IPv4 requests is not a good steward.
IMHO. I cannot emphasize enough how these comments are mine alone, and
have never been discussed with or presented to the Board. IMHO. So
nobody has yet had a chance to convince me how wrong I am. IMHO. IMHO,
IMHO, IMHO, IMHO.
More information about the ARIN-PPML