[arin-ppml] *Spam?* Re: Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack
bret at getjive.com
Thu Dec 30 11:59:22 EST 2010
I think prop-125 is well intentioned, however after reading the prop, I feel that it will put companies like mine between a rock and hard place. We are working towards IPv6, however the re-tooling cost is extraordinary. Also many end devices for our SIP based phones, do not support IPv6 yet.
Would prop-125 be of any help to our company? It sure would damage us financially, and be of almost no benefit since most SIP end-point devices, phones, intercoms, PAPs etc... are not yet IPv6 enabled. If you can force those companies to change and somehow come up with the 100s of thousands of dollars needed to upgrade our core routers, switches and pay our engineers to retool the software, we could jump on it now. However our current plan is to roll it out over the next few years. When there is actual support in the devices that we service.
I personally believe that the adoption rate of IPv6 will pickup as soon as it becomes essential. Why force the market that way when it will naturally head that way? I'd rather people implement it correctly, and do the proper testing needed rather than being forced to change by an organization. The reality is 80% of US business are small and don't have the funds or education to be forced to change. Let the market work. It, by itself, will force them to change.
On Dec 30, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 08:52, Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com> wrote:
>> Umm, If you say that the only way I can have any IPv4 is if I have working IPv6 seems to be an attempt to force me to adopt IPv6.
> Well, prop-125 states that if an org wants any *more/new* IPv4
> addresses, they need to show that they are actively deploying
> production IPv6. The requirement is to use new IPv4 addresses in the
> most efficient way (the policy does not force anyone to request new
> IPv4, only to use it in the communities best interest if they do).
>> What are you going to do about the multitude of networks that have no access to native IPv6?
> What am I going to do personally? Well, for one, I work for a backbone
> provider that offers IPv6 throughout the US. For another, I am working
> to connect folks who need to deploy IPv6 with those who can help:
> http://www.theipv6experts.net. I am also supporting prop-125 which has
> the potential to encourage more access to native IPv6.
>> Yes there are areas in the country where no backbone provider offers IPv6. Tunneling is not a good solution for production services.
> Precisely why we need a policy such as this.
> As I tried to state in my lengthier message: The transition will not
> be without pain. The primary reason for this pain is that folks did
> not deploy IPv6 in time (which includes demanding that their
> upstreams, their vendors and maybe even their neighbors, support
> IPv6). No one who needs more IPv4 is going to get all that they need
> at this point. The question that remains is who should we reward with
> the crumbs: Those who did not act, who still have not acted _or_ the
> folks who listened and who did deploy (or at least are now deploying)
> IPv6? In both scenarios organizations will be hurt, perhaps even
> destroyed but that does not make the two choices equal. Leave the
> trees for a moment and do the right thing for the forest.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML