[arin-ppml] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations to some categoryof organization

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

<michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:

> The point is that we have a REAL shortage looming of IPv4 addresses
> and that network operators are not yet ready to use IPv6 addresses
> as a substitute. That is a genuine shortage of supply, and I believe
> that it is justification for policies which specifically target
> new entrants. Whether the policies only target smart utility
> networks, or whether they go further and target any new entrants,
> I think that there is sufficient reason to think that such
> policies would pass muster.

The heated discussion about a Smart Grid requiring large amounts of IP 
addresses and potentially being refused IPv4 addresses is one which made me 
smile. Watch how things are going to get hotter as fewer IPv4 addresses will 
be available.

Having now spent more than 2 years speaking personally to hundreds of people 
about getting their organisation to embrace IPv6 ASAP, and being told that 
there's still plenty of time and that the pain level isn't high enough for 
them to even think about it, reading this week's messages made me smile.

Talks of banning IPv4 allocations to some category of organisation remind me 
of the old, pre-internet Telco days. I am absolutely astonished that we're 
even discussing this! What we are witnessing here, is regression.
It's going to hurt, and a lot faster than you think, if proper leadership is 
not shown very soon. By that, I mean, roadmaps, strategic and risk analysis, 
and a cost of:
(1) how much will IPv6 implementation cost region-wide
(2) how much will *lack* of IPv6 implementation cost region-wide

Kind regards,

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html