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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> <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.

No, we are not.  If you have studied history or how government functions
or have any education you will know that a great many political problems
are NOT solvable with win-win scenarios.

Problems cause humans grief.  There are 8 well-defined stages of
grief and loss, and these are (not coincidentally) the same stages that 
people use when dealing with problems like losing IPv4.  Here they are:

1) Shock.
2) Denial
3) prevarication/equivocation/bargaining
4) Guilt
5) Anger
6) Depression
7) Resignation
8) Acceptance

This "electric utilities must be denied IPv4" could quite possibly be
nothing more than an expression of Step 3  (if we can maybe deny
"those guys" all that IPv4 that we might avoid the catastrophe)

> 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
> 

Oliver, I wonder if you are really only at Step 5 of your stages
of IPv4 loss?  You sound angry that "proper leadership" isn't being
shown.  I have to ask, for what end?

What will proper leadership accomplish?  Will it extend IPv4's life?
People seem to think that if we tell everyone IPv4 is ending that
they are going to drop everything and jump on IPv6.  But, human
nature being what it is, wouldn't the more likely outcome of
increased education be for people to all jump in now and try to
"stock up" on IPv4?  Kind of the "I'll get mine and screw the
other guy??  Then the end of IPv4 will come much, much sooner
than expected.  Quite the opposite of extending it's life, I think.

Ted

> Kind regards,
>