[arin-ppml] Is this more desired than aTransferPolicy? Needinput

[Michael Sinatra]

On 1/4/09 11:32 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On 11/19/08, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> ...
>> I simply disagree.  You have to do the same amount of application
>>  conformance
>>  testing when your going to a new Windows OS.  Consider the millions of
>>  bucks these companies are paying Microsoft every year for their MS
>>  site licenses.  IPv6 rollouts require NO licensing fees!
> 
> Can you point me to Cisco and Juniper software images that
> support IPv6 that do not require additional licensing costs
> over what the IPv4-only software version costs?

IOS 12.2(33)SXI (the latest release for the 6500 platform)
All JunOS releases for the M and T series.

> All the versions
> I've looked at so far, the IPv6 capable software is different from
> the IPv4 software, and getting IPv6 functionality requires
> paying additional license fees, which is a stumbling point
> for a lot of sites.  

Yes, there are some platforms for brand c and brand j (and others) that 
require additional licensing, but there are also those that don't.  For 
a long time, Juniper made it an advertising point that they did not 
require any different image train or fees.  The fact that they are doing 
this for some of their newer platforms is not only disappointing, it's 
downright slimy, given the real need to move to IPv6.

> I think until we can remove these artificial
> hurdles in the path of IPv6 deployments, we're going to see
> a lot of resistance towards moving to IPv6 due to increased
> costs associated with trying to deploy IPv6.

I hope you give your vendor salescritters and SEs as much of a 
tongue-lashing as I do about this behavior.  The fact that Cisco is now 
moving in the right direction on the 6500 (and possibly 7600) platforms 
is encouraging.

> For some products, in fact, vendors are actively *removing*
> IPv6 support.  In the past, I would have been able to get
> IPv6 images for the routers I use at home; but Cisco has
> removed all IPv6 support for the product line, and has made
> it impossible for me to run IPv6 on it now, even though at
> one time they did offer versions of IOS for it that supported
> IPv6.  These types of hurdles make deploying IPv6 an uphill
> battle for many people.  So we really do need to look at
> what other possible scenarios there are, other than just
> assuming everyone will simply move to IPv6.

I think ARIN should be pushing IPv6 as hard as it can, and not relying 
on vendors to do the right thing first.  We need to draw a line in the 
sand for vendors.  This is the same rationale I would argue for not 
extending the timeline for transition to 4-byte ASNs.  Policies need to 
be realistic, but they also need to drive the right behavior by vendors 
and users alike.  We shouldn't be compromising good policy because 
vendors are doing frankly stupid things.

michael