[arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Lee Howard <spiffnolee at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
>> 1. Nothing inherent to IPv6's design acts to make it more reliable than IPv4.
>> Arguably the massive deployment of NAT necessary to extend IPv4 will
>> alter point #1.
>
> Yes, I make that argument.

Lee,

I accept the possibility and include it in my risk assessment. Still
adds up to watchful waiting.


>> 5. Due to a poor architectural decision by the IETF (IPv6 first, fall
>> back to IPv4), I can't make effective use of IPv6 *at all* unless I
>> deliberately ignore #4 and choose to accept degraded functionality on
>> my system.
>>
>> If not for #5, IPv6 would have a much easier time getting past the
>> "worthy enough to deploy" barrier.
>
> I disagree with you.  I think there's a larger population who have been
> hearing about IPv6 for so long that they've decided it will never
> happen (or who are otherwise ignorant of IPv6), and the only way to
> convince them that networks will use IPv6 is if networks use IPv6.
>
> Otherwise, nobody will know if IPv6 is working until IPv4
> connectivity is shut off, which is a little late to find out.

You can force me to choose between IPv4-only and
IPv6-fall-back-to-IPv4 but you probably can't force me to choose the
latter and probably won't like the lip-service I give it if you try.

Systemic effects of IPv4-fall-back-to-IPv6 notwithstanding,
IPv6-fall-back-to-IPv4 is a powerful disincentive to early movement on
IPv6.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004