[arin-ppml] *Spam?* Re: Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack

Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at
Thu Dec 30 14:21:29 EST 2010

On 12/30/2010 11:12 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Matthew Kaufman<matthew at matthew.at>  wrote:
>> On 12/30/2010 10:47 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>>   Embrace the concept and think about how to approach it
>>> with a lighter hand. What is the least disruptive, least harsh thing
>>> you can do which will still force folks a helpful distance down the
>>> IPv6 adoption path?
>> Let IPv4 addresses run out for everyone at a predictable pace, without
>> screwing around with the policies repeatedly in the last few months.
> Matthew,
> That might or might not be the best idea, but I fail to see how it
> "forces folks a helpful distance down the
> IPv6 adoption path." Can you, like Jimmy just did, set aside your
> objection to forcing IPv6 on people long enough to consider what the
> least harmful way to do so would be IF it was acceptable to do so at
> all?
Around here we call what happens if you do nothing "natural consequences".

The thing is, there isn't enough time between now and runout to force 
hardly anyone to do anything. Between now and runout, what percentage of 
the orgs that have ARIN IPv4 space will actually come back for more IPv4 
space? Those are the *only* ones you have any hope of impacting with 
this policy. Many of the ones which are taking huge chunks of space at a 
time (e.g., Comcast) are already working on their IPv6 deployment, so 
you won't be doing anything to help them either. So we're wasting a 
whole lot of time debating a policy which impacts a small percentage of 
a small percentage.

And then of the tiny fraction of the population it does impact, it isn't 
at all clear that "forcing IPv6 on people" is appropriate in all cases. 
I've given several examples where it is clear that all "forcing IPv6 on 
people" does is cause them to set up a few boxes in a parallel network 
that is simply a waste of time and money... jumping through yet another 
hoop to get the IPv4 space they need.

As for transfers, either this policy will be modified to not affect 
transfers (as it should) or it will just force more of the transfers 
onto the gray and/or black market instead of going through ARIN and 
keeping the records straight (as was the whole point of a transfer policy).

Matthew Kaufman

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list