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

[Kevin Kargel]

A tunnel is really not a good idea for commercial traffic.  I agree on the tunnel, but we recently disconnected our tunnel because of issues raised with the production network.

You can have all the incentive you want to talk to the packet suppliers, but if they won't sell it to you then you can't buy it.  I would really hate to see ARIN get in to the arena of endorsing preferred providers.  That's a whole other can of worms.

If ARIN starts giving preferential treatment to some areas of the country over others I am sure things will get exciting.  This is a definite item to put before counsel.  When you start to say that ISP's in New York and California have a greater priority for IP's than those in the central states where IPv6 is not so available will certainly get congressmen playing in the arena, and I doubt that they will play the game you want them to play.  This could be a short cut to government control.

Kevin


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnkblk at iname.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 3:52 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel; 'Jason Schiller'
> Cc: 
> Subject: RE: *Spam?* Re: [arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125
> Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack
> 
> You mean like me?  That's why we have a tunnel to HE. =(
> 
> That's not throwing them to the wolves, that's providing them extra
> incentive to talk to their IP packet suppliers.
> 
> Frank
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Kargel [mailto:kkargel at polartel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 3:50 PM
> To: 'frnkblk at iname.com'; 'Jason Schiller'
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: *Spam?* Re: [arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125
> Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> > Behalf Of Frank Bulk
> > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 3:36 PM
> > To: 'Jason Schiller'
> > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: *Spam?* Re: [arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125
> > Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack
> >
> > Jason:
> >
> > Owen made some compelling arguments that have given me food for thought.
> >
> > That said, at this time the petition would:
> > a) need to adjust the definition of "real deployment for IPv6" to
> > accommodate for content, eyeball, and any other kind of network.  While
> > the
> > devil is in the details, I currently can't think of any requestor that
> > could
> > say they would never need IPv6 anywhere in their network.  If getting
> IPv4
> > space is important, they'll find some way to make IPv6 happen in their
> > network.  If they can't justify it, then they'll make other
> accomodations.
> 
> What about the networks for whom in the near future at least IPv6 is
> unobtainable?  Are you just going to throw them to the wolves because they
> are geographically in the third world portion of the United States?
>