[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4Address Extension

[George Bonser]

> >
> [WES] The IPv6 purist in me couldn't agree more. The pragmatist in me
> understands that this is an oversimplification of the situation,
> especially
> when you start looking at this from the consumer/residential
> perspective,
> rather than the enterprise.
> How many of the network-connected devices in your house support IPv6
> right
> now, besides your PC/Mac/Linux box and/or Android/iPhone (wifi only)?
> [In my
> case, exactly none, mainly because I couldn't *find* things that did
> when it
> was time to purchase]. You want to replace them all to make the
> network-connected parts keep working? How about your mobile phone?
> No?

It has been my experience that many manufacturers don't change anything
unless they *have* to.  They might this minute be scrambling to get IPv6
into their products but that could all come to a screeching halt and
they breathe a collective sigh of relief if something like this comes
about and they continue shipping v4 only devices in perpetuity.

I suppose I wish there was a way to *temporarily* allow this and not
create a mechanism for the perpetuating of manufacturers to continue to
produce v4-only devices, which they probably will if something like this
passes, particularly if done on a global scale.


> Would you look for another ISP if you called me to complain and I told
> you
> that you *had* to replace one or more of the devices that *you* paid
> for in
> order to make them work on my network? 

I would phrase it differently.  There should be an education process
with the users that the "old" IP addresses will soon be running out and
the new system is incompatible with the old.  This shouldn't be a
"surprise" to the users.  Operators and manufacturers have known this
was coming for a very long time.  In fact, I would support a regulation
at the federal level that makes it illegal to sell an IPv4-only device
in the United States much like they did with TVs.  Maybe something like
this could be used to enable a "converter" solution until the v4 only
devices attrit but right now we have no mechanism to ensure that v4
devices go away and something like this could enable them forever.


> 
> Regardless of what we do, NAT444 is a necessary evil. It's just a
> question
> of how much remaining address space (if any) we want to use in the
> commission of said evil.
> 
> Wes George

I see it as a temporary necessity, not a permanent necessity.

The hard part to crack is how to ensure it is temporary.