[arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack
dwhite at olp.net
Tue Dec 28 22:32:21 EST 2010
On 28/12/10 15:11 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>On Dec 28, 2010, at 11:10 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 27, 2010, at 8:35 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> However, good leadership requires sifting through and moving beyond
>>> those factors to what is actually good policy. Limiting the last bread
>>> crumbs of IPv4 to those who have implemented (for some arbitrary
>>> definition of implemented) IPv6 is the policy equivalent of rearranging
>>> the deck chairs. It doesn't really do anything to help the community
>>> but it might keep some people occupied for a while so that they don't
>>> notice the water temperature until it reaches their necks.
>> That's really a fundamental question here, isn't it? Do we want ARIN
>> to lead or follow?
>I think ARIN has done a pretty good job of leading so far. However,
>perhaps it is important to consider the difference between leadership
>and management. ARIN is leading. ARIN should not be attempting
>to manage. Leadership is bringing the horse to water, which ARIN
>has most certainly done. Management is forcing him to drink, which
>generally tends not to end well. Proposal 125 sought to manage.
>> If we want ARIN to -lead- towards the IPv6 solution that we, as
>> engineers, consider technically superior to carrier NAT then it's past
>> time to start gently nudging folks in that direction with our policy
>> choices. It's no different than when the folks of their day said hey,
>> CIDR's the new ball game, get used to it.
>I believe ARIN has been and continues to lead towards IPv6.
>> If we want ARIN to -follow- then we should, as Robert says, let "the
>> economics of the transfer market vs. the equipment market make the
>> proper course of action crystal clear."
>First, I don't buy into your concept that "lead or follow" is somehow
>a binary choice.
>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 agree with Owen, and in the context of ARIN leadership for IPv6 adoption,
this model fits much better:
A leader is best when people barely know that he exists. Less good when
they obey and acclaim him. Worse when they fear and despise him. Fail
to honor people, and they fail to honor you. But of a good leader, when
his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say, "We did this
*Good* IPv6 adoption will come from the bottom up, starting with engineers
and techs in our respective organizations who see opportunity in crisis,
and who are armed with the knowledge and tools to accomplish it.
Top down enforcement from an external entity (ARIN) will tend toward poor
More information about the ARIN-PPML