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

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:

> 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)

An interesting scenario and you might well be right. But is this subject
really supposed to be treated in an emotional way?

A "Smart Grid" will require network connectivity, especially in the most
remote places - such connectivity is only possible using IPv4 at the moment,
thus their need for IPv4 addresses. Or perhaps metering equipment isn't IPv6
compatible yet? I understand the concern that should such a grid be built on 
IPv4 addressing, this will accelerate IPv4 address depletion. I also 
understand it would be a lot more *desirable* if the power utilities used 
IPv6. But if they wish to implement their plan today, what choice do they 
have? How do you choose whom to ban from obtaining IPv4 addresses? What 
would the criteria be? IMHO this would imply a serious slowdown to 
innovation already.

> 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?

I'm inclined to agree with you about your analysis re: IPv4 life extension,
but you have somehow missed my point (and I am sorry, but it's probably my 
fault because I have not explained my point properly) which is that of 
speaking specifically about IPv6. For me, IPv4 address depletion is an 
irrelevant red herring and yet, the conversation seems to revolve around 
IPv4 all the time, with many brainy and talented people trying to slow the 
rate at which the brick wall will be hit instead using their brain power in 
thinking of ways to avoid hitting the wall altogether.

I believe that arguing about IPv4 address depletion is irrelevant because 
the future is IPv6 - not IPv4. More money will be
made by people designing new services on IPv6 than those scavengers trading 
crumbs of IPv4 addresses.

The leadership I'd like to see is leadership on IPv6 transition. Okay, so I 
might be on your stage (5) :-) but that's only in order to get us out of 
that framework of "stages of grief and loss" which you describe.

Why do so many people here have to look at the past? They should go out 
there and meet-up with the young generation. It's going to be their network, 
not their dad's. :-)

Warm regards,

Olivier

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