[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyforIPv4 Addresses - Last Call
owen at delong.com
Thu Jan 8 13:43:59 EST 2009
> We really can't approach an IPv6 installation like we did with
> turnups. It's hard to phrase the debate in terms of what new customers
> we'll get or new gadgets we can support. This is more of an
> infrastructure debate.
The infrastructure statement here got me thinking...
Perhaps a good infrastructure analogy is earthquake retrofitting of
freeway overpasses. In California, it was well known that this was
needed for many years before 1989 (the Loma Prietta 7.5 quake)
and yet there were always "higher priority" things for the available
IPv6 is much the same. We all know that to continue the growth of
the internet, IPv6 is necessary, but, there are always better things
to do more immediately with available resources. I suspect that
IPv4 runout (or slightly later transferable IPv4 runout) will hit the
industry much like the Loma Prietta quake hit California. Sure, nobody
will die and most existing functionality will still be there, but,
companies depending on growing their customer base to survive
will be thrust into an environment where bringing IPv6 at least to dual
stack support will become significantly more urgent, and, this will
drive getting it done much as the Loma Prietta quake drove a massive
effort on bridge retrofits.
Note, quake: 1989, now it's 2009 (almost 20 years later) and the
bridge retrofits still aren't complete, but, there's a lot more done
got done in the 20 years leading up to 1989.
More information about the ARIN-PPML