[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension

[Mark Smith]

Hi William,

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:22:22 -0500
William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Mark Smith
> <ipng at 69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote:
> > Why should the global Internet community (i.e. the end-users of
> > the Internet) have to help wear the costs of individual ISPs not
> > deploying IPv6 quickly enough?
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> It seems to me that "whose fault is it?" matters less than "what do we
> do now?" What we do now is lessen the transition problems (so that the
> end users don't get screwed in the short term) while moving forward on
> the transition as quickly as practicable (so that the end users don't
> get screwed in the long term).
> 

They're going to get screwed regardless in the short term because IPv6
hasn't been deployed. NAT444 is going to be bad what ever address space
is used between the LSN and the customer CPE.

The proposal doesn't mention another source of unique IPv4 addresses
that could be used for this purpose - the ISPs' existing assignments.
It'll be functionally equivalent to a NAT444 /10, and will preserve
more of the remaining public address space for purposes where truly
globally unique IPv4 addresses are necessary. It would mean ISPs would
have to start sharing their existing addresses sooner rather than
later, but that is better for the customers - the longer that ISPs avoid
introducing address sharing, the larger the shock to customers when the
ISP can't avoid it any longer and has force customers to share
addresses all at once. A gradual address sharing roll out would be far
better than an abrupt one, for both the ISP and it's customers.

(I'd think in principle if ARIN reserve a NAT444 /10, then the other
RIRs would be expected to reserve a /10 or similar size in their region
- the proposition doesn't say if the ARIN space would be usable in other
regions. Assuming all chose a /10, that means 5 x /10s of public
address space going in one fell swoop ...)

Regards,
Mark.


> Do you disagree?
> 
> 
> > Helping ISPs avoid those costs turns the
> > situation into one of a Moral Hazard. It won't encourage IPv6
> > adoption; it'll delay it because both the incentive to do so, and the
> > consequence of not doing so, are reduced.
> 
> Shall we encourage the patient not to hurt himself by setting the bone
> but refusing him pain medication? Sounds positively monstrous to me.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004