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

[Lee Dilkie]

Sorry for top-posting but it's not important to answer your concerns on
a point by point basis.

I've heard this from a lot of IT admins and even from my own company's
IT admins.

But the fact is, you are not the problem. Companies, like yours, do not
use all that many v4 addresses today. They have nice, profitable, v4
address blocks from an ISP and are well managed entities. You can stay
with v4 for a very long time.

No, I think what we're after is getting the major consumers, ISP's for
public consumption, to move dual then eventually v6 only. And for that,
all we need is to get a good number of the servers they connect to, to
go dual stack.

And yes, while you'll still be running v4 inside and using some small v4
public address block, you'll very likely run dual stack on your public
internet-facing servers to allow the new "v6 only" customers to see your
wares. And that effort is a *lot* easier and cheaper than rolling out v6
in your entire enterprise.

-lee

Chris Engel wrote:
> I'm going to be very upfront with you guys. Without confidence that something very similar to NAT will be available for IPv6.... I'm going to eschew any adoption of IPv6 on the networks I'm responsible for. I guess that would also entail...grabbing, hoarding and stockpiling as many IPv4 addresses as possible that might be required for future use.
>
> If you think my reaction is atypical for the Network/System/IT admins on corporate side end user networks.... I think you are going to be in for a rude awakening. You are going to start seeing alot more of this type behavior as awareness of the details of IPv6 increases in that population.
>
>
> The number one way to INSURE resistance to the adoption of a new technology is to REMOVE FUNCTIONALITY that people already enjoy under their existing functionality. I believe that is the exact opposite reaction toward IPv6 that most people on this list would like to see occur.
>
> It is pretty much IRRELEVANT that some people find NAT problematic or unusefull. Those of us who do rely on it...and there are many...obviously find it useful.
>
> On the other hand....the best way to promote the adoption of a new technology is to make transition to it as SEAMLESS as possible....meaning the absolute MINIMUM number of changes in end user behavior or functionality required to make it work.
>
> IPv6 has ZERO utility for me other then the possibility of allowing a few more public addresses if I need them. Changing the abstraction of my internal network would actually be a significant NEGATIVE. Changing fundamentally the design architecture on my internal network and the operating procedures necessary to manage it would be a significant NEGATIVE. There would already a HUGE amount of work and cost involved in just setting up the ability for end users to connect to IPv6 addresses....for frankly NEGLIGIBLE benefit (at least initially).
>
> There is already a fairly strong chance that the initial adopters of IPv6 only addresses are going to be balkanized from many existing (IPv4) sites due the cost/benefit ratio of implementing IPv6 for many organizations. Placing more hurdles and disincentives then are necessary for Network Admins to support interoperability with IPv6 sites on thier networks is NOT going to help that.
>
>
> That's all I'm saying. Whether ARIN's role or policies would effect that equation.... I would have no clue. Certainly anything policy wise that would bar or preclude some sort of IPv6 NAT adoption would be detrimental.... and certainly being aware of such issues/concerns in it's planning in regard to IPv6 would be helpful...I would think.
>
>
>
> Christopher Engel
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>