[arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please help?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:49 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Stephen Sprunk'; 'Jeremy H.Griffith'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 
> can you please help?
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >  
> >   
> <snipped lots of good points well reasoned and argued>
> >
> > ARIN and our community should be making EVERY EFFORT to figure out 
> > ways to FORCE people OUT of IPv4 because WE HAVE THE MOST 
> TO LOSE IF 
> > WE DON'T.
> >   
> 
> My point was simply that we cannot FORCE anyone to be happy 
> with IPv6 and cease their demands for IPv4.
> 
> They will do what they decide they want to do.
> 

I may desperately want to paint myself purple and run down the
street naked singing the Free Software Song, but the cost (in
either jail time of physchological evalution time) may be higher
than what I would be willing to pay:

http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/articles/features/0,1000002000,2132593,00.htm

> We can try to persuade, coax, or be the most tempting and 
> logical course of action.
> 
> We have no mechanism to force anyone to cease and desist in 
> their pursuit for IPv4.
> 
> We can try to make it unpleasant to to so in our sandbox, but 
> that may simply create incentive to get us kicked out of said sandbox.
> 

The question is, how much incentive?

Suppose we make it unpleasant, so a business that wants more IPv4
has to go buy a smaller business that's failing, for example, to
get around the restriction.  Well, that's going to be weighed against
the cost to convert to IPv6 and use proxies.

It is likely going to be cheaper to proxy no matter what.  It
really is only in instances where the org needs IPv4 and it's
completely unavailable that they would resort to buying a few
legislators and using government regulation to force the issue.
But, in that case, if IPv4 is really unavailable, then what
does that accomplish?

One of the pro-transfer market arguments has been that a transfer
market allows moves to take place in a controlled manner rather
than forcing companies to engage in kludges.

However, if companies DON'T use kludges to increase IPv4 then
what incentive do they have EVER to convert to IPv6?

> > You want the US to become an island of IPv4 in the sea of 
> IPv6 in the 
> > rest of the worlds Internet, just go right ahead with this 
> > foolishness.  Sure, make it easy to keep truckin' with IPv4 post 
> > runout.  Make it super easy.  Who cares if a few poor people get 
> > tossed off the Internet or become permanent second-class citizens 
> > behind a translator somewhere, when it lets the major ISPs wring 
> > another few years out of their IPv4 networks.  Who cares if 
> the rest 
> > of the world rings the US with IPv4<->IPv6 proxies that oh, by the 
> > way, make nice black boxes that they can use to filter us out.
> >   
> 
> Wouldnt all this provide the FORCE to IPv6 you are looking for?
>

US citizens by and large trust "their betters" to make the right
decisions FOR them on things they don't understand.  They trust their
car mechanic to tell them what is wrong with their car, they trust
their doctor to tell them what is wrong with them, they trust their
financial advisor at AIG to safeguard their 401K retirement funds
(which is why there's a lynch mob after AIG right now) and they
trust us geeks of the Internet to do the right thing with IP addressing.

And the right thing is a small amount of short term pain right now
to get on to IPv6 to avoid a lot more pain long term.  If we take the
easy way out and don't do this, I think they will be pretty mad at us
later on.

Ted