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

[Owen DeLong]

On Aug 31, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 
>> however, the issue at hand here is subtly different.  ipv4 that's needed
>> for dual stack would be a transition tool which presumes native ipv6 as
>> an end state for some large part of (perhaps all of) the internet.
>> ipv4 that's needed in the "ipv4 only, for a long time, let's avoid
>> ipv6 and hope that something better comes along before we really can't
>> squeeze out any more ipv4 space" vision (to which i do not subscribe.)
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] I understand that distinction. I am actually in the "transition tool" camp in terms of what I would like to see happen. I think address abundance would be great. However, I don't have to pay for any upgrades or do the work. The people who do often are in the latter camp (see Chris Engel's comments) and can and will control their own behavior and investment decisions. 
> 

Absolutely. I just think that Chris underestimates what it is going to cost him to try and prolong the life of IPv4 and that as he begins to realize those costs, IPv6 will become radically more attractive in terms of cost/benefit ratio. Unfortunately, he probably will not realize this until he has wasted relatively vast sums of money on expensive equipment to try and keep IPv4 on life support when that money would have been better spent moving towards IPv6.

Such is the short-term thinking of a market.

>> i don't understand your disagreement since i'd said "policies that
>> favour the [ipv4 for a long time to come] model" and since the ARIN
>> community could drive toward liberalization of the transfer policy to
>> include non-needs-based recipients if that was the community's
>> consensus.
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] My point was that the difference between our positions is not primarily a difference over policy. It is a difference between what we see as likely to happen in the next decade. To me, IPv4 for a "long time to come" (if long time = at least a decade) is a foregone conclusion. 
> 

To me, "IPv4 for a long time" is what those who lack vision will likely invest in. Those who can look a little beyond the next 10Q will be able to see that "IPv4 while we have to and IPv6 as soon as possible" yields much better cost benefit ratios over the next few years, while yielding slight penalties for one or two quarters.

>>> 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.
>> 
>> milton, this final paragraph of your message is quite edgy and almost
>> caused me to just hit delete rather than answering you.  a word to the
>> wise: please remain civil if you want dialogue rather than monologue.
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] apologies. really. But I was baffled by what seemed to be the implication that network operators should somehow work the ARIN process in order to gain the right to NAT or stay on IPv4 - which they can already do without ARIN's permission. Thus your comment didn't make any sense. But now, I guess, from a careful reading of context, you mean that they should lobby for further liberalizing of ARIN's transfer process. 
> 

Network operators who want to NAT and stay on IPv4 with their existing resources can do so for free. Network operators who want policy optimized for their ability to continue to NAT and obtain additional IPv4 addresses from (some source I can't imagine), OTOH, will probably need to work to bend ARIN policy to that will.

Owen