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

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> barely functional band-aid."  and while one could argue that we're
> holding back the growth of the internet by trying to use non-NAT-
> compatible devices, the counter-argument is that various folk are
> holding back the growth of the internet by using non-dual-stack devices.
> so what we have here is a divergence in the vision itself.

[Milton L Mueller] 
Once again I am forced to remind you that even those who use dual stack devices need IPv4 addresses. 
To get more of them, they can either trade for them or NAT or both. But invoking dual stack in no way obviates the need for additional IPv4 addresses for growing networks in the near term. Is there some reason why people persistently refuse to face this?

> note that the ARIN community could make policies that favour the "IPv4
> for a long time to come, let's use CGN and NAT to make it last until
> something better than IPv6 comes along" model that you've described

[Milton L Mueller] 
That may be a major source of the disagreement here. In my view "IPv4 for a long time to come" is not a "policy" that someone adopted or should adopt, it is simply a fact, a recognition of the way things are actually playing out. ARIN has correctly adopted a policy to permit v4 transfers because it has recognized that fact. The only issue is whether those policies are liberal enough. 

> here, in which case ARIN (both the organization and its board) would
> follow those policies.  if this vision of the future appeals to you then
> i encourage you to pursue it by following the Policy Development
> Process.

[Milton L Mueller] 
Network operators who are already delaying or avoiding IPv6 because of the extra time and costs associated with it are supposed to invest time in an ARIN PDP in order to validate a choice they can already make on their own? You _do_ need to get out more.