[arin-ppml] *Spam?* Re: Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack
kkargel at polartel.com
Tue Dec 28 18:47:06 EST 2010
> Good leadership operates at the consent of the people lead. I see
> nothing to indicate consent or consensus for ARIN to start trying
> to strong-arm IPv6. I believe external forces will drive that soon
> enough. People that have been paying attention are already
> moving on IPv6. Those that are not will not deploy it just because
> we hold the last few IPv4 addresses hostage for them obtaining
> an IPv6 allocation/assignment. That's like those "did you
> really mean to..." dialogues everyone just dismisses without
> reading on their computers.
I must concur with Owen on all points. I have an IPv6 allocation, and I am fighting hard to get native IPv6 routing from my upstream(s). The only reason I can see to support 125 would be a completely selfish one in that I have predominantly met the requirements and that it would make the remaining pool more accessible to me because of the number of entities that would be disqualified from accessing it because they have not worked toward meeting the IPv6 requirements.
I am not willing to put my selfish concerns ahead of the community. If it is desired to force one protocol by requiring another protocol as a pre-requisite, then there are more appropriate standards bodies to accomplish that than a registrar. (IETF? IEEE?) I suspect such an attempt within the standards bodies would be rejected out of hand as it should be here.
Can you imagine any of the standards organizations accepting a proposal that says interfaces without an IPv6 address must not have an IPv4 address?
More information about the ARIN-PPML