[arin-ppml] IPv4 is depleted today

[Scott Leibrand]

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>> It is imperative that our policy making strive to increase ease of 
>>> moving to IPv6 and decrease ease of staying with IPv4.
>>>
>>> A liberalized transfer policy does nothing to increase ease 
>>> of moving 
>>> to IPv6, all it does is make it easier to stay on IPv4.
 >>
>> I think you just identified a key point of disagreement / 
>> philosophical 
>> difference.
>>
>> To my mind the idea that "we need to adopt policy to make 
>> people's lives 
>> harder", in the interest of promoting our idea of their 
>> long-term best 
>> interest, is an extraordinary claim that requires 
>> extraordinary evidence 
>> that the benefits outweigh the harms.
>>
> 
> But nobody who is against a liberalized transfer policy is asking
> that we adopt ANYTHING.  They are asking that we DO NOT adopt
> anything.

Understood, but didn't you just say that we need to "decrease ease of 
staying with IPv4"?

>> I'm all in favor of easing the move to IPv6.  However, I 
>> think we also 
>> need to do what we can to ease the transition across the board.
>>
> 
> Your right.  I hope you define "transition" as I do, meaning
> in this instance CHANGE from IPv4 to IPv6, and NOT meaning
> continue to use IPv4 and ignoring IPv6.
> 
> Would you be willing to tie a liberalized policy to a requirement
> that the transferee (ie: the party that is obtaining the IPv4 as
> a result of a liberalized transfer) submit a transition plan to
> IPv6 to ARIN, and some reasonable proof that they were actually
> doing some of the items on it?  Such as obtaining IPv6 allocations
> from ARIN?  And such as providing the date their feed is going to
> natively route IPv6 and the date that they plan to do so as well?
> And maybe some mandatory followup by ARIN a few years later to
> insure these things are being done?

I supported such conditions in the Soft Landing proposal, and would not 
oppose them in a transfer policy.  However, the consensus seems to be that 
we should be removing restrictions from 2008-2, not adding them, so I'd 
need to see some community support for such conditions before I'd consider 
adding them to the proposal.

> If not, what a transfer policy does is allow the status quo to
> continue UNCHANGED.  That is NOT transition.

IMO transition is not something we can force.  Either it will happen or it 
won't, and at best we can only nudge things along slightly.  What we can 
do is make it easier to adopt v6, by lots of hard work fixing 
interoperability problems.  We can also take policy action to ease the 
transition and buy a little time while those problems are fixed.  IMO 
*not* doing everything we can on both fronts is an abdication of ARIN's 
stewardship responsibility.

-Scott

P.S. This will be my last post on this topic today.  If we haven't both 
made our positions clear, more message won't do the trick.  :)