[arin-ppml] v4 to v6 obstacles

[Scott Leibrand]

Earl,

Just to clarify: you're just referring to the dollar cost of getting 
IPv6, right?  (We adopted policy not too long ago to make sure you 
qualify for a direct IPv6 assignment if you want one.)

Have you considered getting an IPv6 /48 from your upstream(s)?  That 
should be completely free, and should allow you to dual-stack at no cost...

One thing that may develop into an effective carrot is that the IPv4 
transfer market will put a price on your IPv4 block.  Have you thought 
at all about how high that price would have to be to get you to renumber 
out of it?

-Scott

Earl Baugh wrote:
> Joe Maimon wrote:
> >>Lee Dilkie wrote:
> >>
> >> One good way for organizations like ARIN to help with dual stack is to
> >> simply give out v6 addresses, free, to all current v4 address holders
> >>
> >Which they do for the most part. To date the only significant complaints
> >I have seen have been regarding those who arent IPv4 holders or with the
> >single prefix policy.
>
> As a "small" legacy IPv4 holder, I can attest that one of the main 
> reasons I haven't rolled out IPv6
> is mostly because I wasn't offered an IPv6 equivalent  to the IPv4 I 
> hold.
>
> I know of other similar small legacy IPv4 holders who are in the exact 
> came boat.
>
> I did see where I could pay $$  to register and then continuously pay 
> $$ for it each year...
> But  I'll be fairly honest, what would be in it for me?   Yes, it's a 
> self-centered attitude, I acknowledge that, however
> businesses and organizations on the whole need some reason, aside from 
> the "we'd all like you to",
> or "this is the latest technology, trust me you HAVE to have it".    
> For a lot of businesses  and organizations
> neither of those reasons will get them to change.  If what I have 
> meets my needs,  and there aren't any IPv6 features
> or services that I "have-to-have" along with the additional cost to 
> even get started, what's the motivation?
> (even IF it is free, I still have to incur additional time and labor 
> to manage the dual stacks, but I'd be at least
> willing and able to at least "start" moving if I had one in hand....)
>
> For example, at least to some degree, Windows XP to Windows Vista 
> adoption numbers support this type of thought process.
> What's going to "force" people to move from XP is Microsoft stopping 
> support for it, (that's what happened with Win98) and/or there being
> some device or application that breaks the old, or requires the newer 
> OS (USB devices for Windows 98 to Windows XP for example).   
>
> However, in the IPv4 case, you're not going to get "support dropped" 
> for it, and to date there isn't any IPv6 "killer-app" / device.
> People continue to cleverly and creatively develop apps for and get 
> more and more mileage out of IPv4...
> ( personally I feel that NAT came out of this 
> "clever-creative-stretch-the-spec" thought process. )
>
> So I agree with Lee that without a "carrot" of  "You have an IPv4 
> allocation, here's your equivalent IPv6 allocation, no questions asked",
> you're going to have to either wait for no address availability or 
> some IPv6 "killer-app" to see folks start to move in any significant 
> number.
> And given how clever folks are, I'm not sure how much of a forcing 
> function 0 IPv4 addresses is going to be yet...
>
> No vendor is going to "drop" IPv4 support... not if they want to stay 
> in business.  
> Every piece of equipment I have supports a IPv6 and IPv4 stack...and 
> has for years, so it's not because I couldn't do it...
>
>
> Earl Baugh
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.