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

[Owen DeLong]

On Aug 30, 2011, at 8:11 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 
>> -----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?
> 

You only need dual stack if you need IPv4. If everything currently IPv4 was
dual stacked, then, everything additional would only need IPv6. The
need for IPv4 for dual-stack is limited to those things that have IPv4 and
those things that need to reach IPv4 hosts that are not yet dual-stack.

In an ideal world, IPv4 hosts would have gone to dual stack before
we had an issue with no IPv4 addresses for new hosts joining the
network. Unfortunately because markets tend to be dysfunctional
in this regard and do not yield the best outcome in such cases, we
have arrived at an outcome where we will now be forced to deal with
kludges and workarounds until we arrive at a point where IPv6 is
the dominant and viable protocol.

>> 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. 
> 

I am not convinced that things will play out that way at all. I think, instead,
that the immediate situation is not what things will look like in a year and
that as we begin to gain more experience with actual IPv4 runout and
actual deployment of CGN and other kludges, we will see increasing
pain in and cost of IPv4 as a bigger and bigger motivator to accelerate IPv6 
deployment. In other words, I believe the market will shift, but, that it will
shift late and that we aren't at that late point yet. There are those of us
trying to save the market from itself by encouraging earlier adoption
of IPv6.

>> 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.
> 

They are welcome to continue their impersonation of ostriches if they
feel that is in their best interest. I don't think it is Paul who needs to get
out more.

Owen