[arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack
owen at delong.com
Wed Dec 29 04:17:16 EST 2010
On Dec 28, 2010, at 7:39 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 2010, at 11:10 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> 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.
> Leadership is not giving a motivational speech and then following the
> crowd to a pub, it's giving the speech and then drawing the crowd to
> one of the better pubs. Despite the name, a cheerleader is at best a
> cross between a dancer and a gymnast. Rah rah IPv6.
Agreed. Key is drawing them to the better pub, not tying them up,
tossing them in the back of a truck and unloading them into the
single pub of your choosing.
> At the core, ARIN is a resource manager. I have no problem with it
> taking a following role, moving where the market leads. Frankly, that
> strikes me as wise. But don't mistake it for leadership.
I was more referring to AC leadership in the policy process rather
than ARIN leadership in IPv6 originally. However...
> If you want ARIN to show leadership with respect to IPv6 then however
> much they may have missed on the particulars, the prop 125 guys are on
> the right track. They just need to come back at it with an approach
> that's less poorly-conceived bullying and more firmly nudging people
> to take that next baby step in a healthy direction.
Perhaps. I'd need to see that policy proposal before I would comment
>> 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.
> Building a consensus is leadership. Following the consensus is something else.
Consent is not consensus.
> Personally, it still doesn't make sense to me why we don't want the
> IPv4 form to have a checkbox which says, "give me my first minimum
> sized IPv6 block at no extra cost."
May I suggest that you move to the APNIC region where you can, essentially,
do just that or that you propose such a policy in the ARIN region.
I don't have a problem with simplifying the request process. I do have a problem
with the "Give them address space they didn't ask for" approach being advocated
More information about the ARIN-PPML