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

[Bret Palsson]

What is the exact intention of prop 125?

People keep saying what the intention is not. What is the plain english goal of prop 125?

-Bret

On Dec 30, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:

> Bret:
> 
> Perhaps you misunderstand -- the prop isn't requiring IPv6 deployment, it's
> just saying you won't get any more IPv4 if you don't have a meaningful
> (we're not nearly in agreement what that means) IPv6 deployment.  For those
> who have no IPv6 deployed, D-Day just came a few months earlier than those
> who have some measure of IPv6 deployed.
> 
> It's possible that if prop 125 passed that the prices for transferred IPv4
> space would go up earlier than if we waited for ARIN's free pool to
> evaporate.  Those with IPv4 space to sell would price in the fact that
> IPv4-only shops can't get more IPv4 space from ARIN's free pool.
> 
> Frank
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Bret Palsson
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 10:59 AM
> To: Chris Grundemann
> Cc: chris at theipv6experts.net; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient
> Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack
> 
> Chris:
> 
> 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.
> 
> -Bret
> 
> 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.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> ~Chris
>> 
>>> 
>>> Kevin
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> @ChrisGrundemann
>> weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
>> www.burningwiththebush.com
>> www.theIPv6experts.com
>> www.coisoc.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> 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:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>