[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy -Revisedandforwarded to the Board

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George, Wes E [NTK] [mailto:Wesley.E.George at sprint.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:05 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt; 'William Herrin'; 'Martin Hannigan'
> Cc: 'arin ppml'
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy 
> -Revisedandforwarded to the Board
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 4:55 PM
> To: George, Wes E [NTK]; 'William Herrin'; 'Martin Hannigan'
> Cc: 'arin ppml'
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy 
> -Revised andforwarded to the Board
> 
> >> And before anyone says it, yes, IPv6 *is* the correct 
> answer to this 
> >> problem, but that's being simplistic.
> 
> >No it is not.  The project that always takes the longest is the one 
> >that is never started.  If you want to eat an elephant you do it a 
> >spoonfull at a time.
> 
> >Ted
> 
> I think you misinterpret my intent. I'm not saying that IPv6 
> isn't the answer. I would very much have liked to see my 
> company implement 2 years ago so that this wasn't a problem.
> However, reality is reality. I'm saying that from a timing 
> perspective, we don't have enough spoons, not that we refuse 
> to pick one up. The project is underway, but will take longer 
> than we have based on current projections.

I probably did a bit too much snipping, since you had gone on
to say that retrofitting existing devices for IPv6 wasn't
easy, I was more responding to that.

> Therefore the 
> means to keep the network functional in the intervening time 
> will be important. 


But it will be, because all of those existing IPv4 devices aren't
going to lose their IPv4 numbering as a result of runout.  It is
the NEW devices that will need to be IPv6 compliant.

IPv4-runout for YOUR org will be the date that you ask ARIN
for another allocation of IPv4 and they say they can't satisfy it.
That may or may not be the same date of IPv4 runout for everyone
else.  On that day, from that point on any device you assign
an IP address to SHOULD BE compliant with IPv6.

Since that date is in the future, effectively what your saying
is that it's really NOT the EXISTING devices that need retrofitting
to IPv6.  It is the devices you are going to assign IP to at
some date in the future - it's future, new, devices.  Unless, that
is, your recycling old IPv4-only devices.  And if your recycling,
what about the IPv4 numbers that used to be assigned to them,
where are they going?

yes, this probably sounds simplistic.  But, that is because it
IS rather simple.  We have IPv4 still available now.  We know at
some date in the future it will be gone.  We can simply start buying
palletloads of devices now, that are IPv6 compliant, and the
warehouse is going to empty out of the IPv4-only wigits before we
run out of IPv4.

What other way would it work?

Ted