[arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....

[Chris Engel]

> > multilayer NAT. So to me the need for a global transition to IPv6
> > remains inevitable no matter what happens in the IPv4 number resources
> > market. IPv4 is just too small no matter how efficiently the world
> > learns to use it. Perhaps some investors (and perhaps some speculators)
> > would be well served by lengthening the lifetime of IPv4 by a few more
> > years,
> 
> These kinds of comments show a certain lack of sensitivity to the needs of
> actual network operators. Given the pace of the IPv6 transition, and the fact
> that even those who migrate must use some combination of NAT and IPv4 to
> remain compatible with most of the internet, we have no choice but to
> lengthen the lifetime of IPv4.
> No one knows how long that period will be. Do you? If you've received some
> divine illumination on that score, by all means publish it. If you are just
> evangelizing IPv6, spare us, we've heard it 100 times before.
> 
> > but the bigger the IPv4 network gets the harder it will be to
> > pull it through the knothole of the IPv6 transition.
> 
> Since IPv6 migration REQUIRES a larger IPv4 network during the dual stacking
> period of transition, this is a pretty "interesting" observation
> 
> > In summary, ARIN has a transfer policy and ARIN stands ready to record
> > the results of private party transactions in IPv4 numbering resources.
> 
> That's good to hear.
> 

It's pretty clear that there are some here who evangelize on the virtues of IPv6. It's no surprise since the focus of the list is about address utilization and IPv6 does solve that problem admirably. For many of us who's engagement with IT is broader then just address utilization, IPv6 comes with a whole host of problems in other areas that make it undesirable. Which is why you have seen alot of hesitation in adoption of it. I think what you are observing here is a healthy dose of "Lets make it someone else's headache." Those who primarily aren't effected by the negatives IPv6 brings with it are hoping to see a stake driven through the heart of IPv4 so that v6 becomes more useful to them and they don't have to continue to deal with the headaches that limited address space under IPv4 (and some of the measures taken to extend it) cause them and can move on to an environment that is more beneficial to them. Those of us for whom IPv6 is a "crap-tastic" solution are hoping to extend the useful life of IPv4 as much as possible so we can avoid dealing with the problems IPv6 will bring (and hopefully find that some of those problems will be better addressed by the time we need to bring it on board). Also, of course, on both sides of the aisle you have people with monetary interests tied up in the issue, whether it's selling IPv6 solutions or hoping to invest in an IPv4 address market. So it goes.

I think that's the real disconnect. This list is primarily concerned with address resource policy. From the perspective of address policy, IPv6 is pretty much a no brainer as it DOES solve the resource shortage issue admirably. From almost every other perspective, IPv6 stinks on ice and for those of us who would have to deal the problems it presents, it's a no brainer to try to extend the useful life on IPv4 as much as possible.  


Chris Engel