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

Paul Vixie paul at redbarn.org
Tue Aug 30 23:27:45 EDT 2011

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:11:37 -0400
Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 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?

i didn't realize i was refusing to face that.  upon review i still
don't think i am refusing to face that.  ipv4 that's needed for dual
stack is still ipv4 that's needed (as opposed to ipv4 that's merely
wanted for some non-needs-based purpose which could include hoarding or
speculation).  i'm in favour of people who need ipv4 having access to
it and i consider the current ARIN transfer policy adequate to that.

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.)

> > 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
> 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 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

> > 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.
> 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.
Paul Vixie

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list