[arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack

[Owen DeLong]

On Dec 28, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> On 12/28/2010 3:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Hold on folks, this is getting out of hand.
> 
> If ARIN wants to hand-out IPv6 along with an IPv4 request, who the
> hell cares?  Requiring an org to spend a few moments estimating their
> future use of IPv6 when they request IPv4 is not going to take the
> skin off anyone's nose.  It is by no means the same as requiring the
> org to actually USE the IPv6
> 
> We have enough IPv6 to hand out IPv6 to people who we are 95% sure
> will NEVER use it for the next century so this argument that we
> shouldn't just go ahead and assign the IPv6 even when an org doesn't
> want it is rubbish.  Assign it!  Sometime in the next 30 years they
> will need it and then hey, the assignment work will be done and they
> won't have to bug the RIR a second time and go through the whole
> justification process again.
> 
I disagree. It's simply not good resource management to hand resources
out to people who don't want them and haven't expressed a need for them.

It's very hard for us to claim we have needs based policy if we start
allocating for reasons other than need.

> This is like when you go through the drive-through at McDonalds and
> they throw 4 ketchup packets in every bag that they hand out.  Your

Most of the McDonalds here have stopped doing that and now give
you ketchup on request.

> like the guy who wants to make a federal case about the fact that
> you don't like ketchup so the 4 ketchup packets are going to go to
> waste because the drive through girl didn't take the time to ask you
> if you wanted ketchup or not.  So your going to make the girl spend

1.	I don't think it takes 30 seconds to ask "Ketchup?" and listen
	for a yes or no. It doesn't even take 30 seconds when I ask
	for bar-b-q sauce (which I like more than ketchup) when I go
	through the drive through.

2.	IPv6 blocks are not ketchup packets. Nobody maintains any sort
	of registration data on ketchup packets.

> an extra 30 seconds ascertaining this to save a few ketchup packets
> for everyone who goes through the drive through, but there are 10
> cars in line so the guy at the end is going to get his food 5 minutes
> late, and cold - just so you can pat yourself on the back and say
> you saved 5 ounces of IPv6 ketchup!!!
> 
It's more like 10 seconds or less, so, the guy 10 cars back loses
by just over 1.5 minutes later than he might have otherwise.
Most of this 10 seconds can be eliminated from relevance if
the question takes place at the time of order or payment rather
than after passing the food through the window.

So... First, your statement is hyperbole even for the original
subject. Second, it doesn't apply at all well to registered
resources. The internet is not a happy meal and IPv6 blocks
should not be the toy surprise in the IPv4 box.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20101229/105336cf/attachment.htm>