Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems
vaughn at swiftsystems.com
Fri Jan 7 08:01:42 EST 2011
Though I shudder to consider the responses I may get, and truly do not suggest any intentional bad play, it still needs to be said:
Some of the folks who are pushing this have potential alterior motives, such as being IPv6 consultants, authors/content providers, speakers, trainers, service providers, etc.
Consider this possible subconscious but nefarious thought: "The slow market adoption rates among the small and mids, who most often need outside talent to adopt new technologies, are running counter to desired market conditions. So, wouldn't it be nice if we could use ARIN to force the issue and create an unnatural bubble of demand?"
This is why there is so much hidden, and potentially discrediting danger in having ARIN become a behavioral modification tool that benefits some at the direct expense of others. Even the idea of it is risky.
IPv6 is available. When IPv4 is depleted, the change will come soon enough as a result of market forces. However, many providers who manage their networks efficiently, or who believe that they can manage in the transfer market for a while, etc., may be desiring to wait out the storm, and then deploy IPv6 when costs are more inline, and/or needed talent is more readily available. Wise or not, that seems an autonomous operational right. But, this policy would (or could be perceived to) hoist an economic burden on them counter to thier own best interest, potentially leading to ill will as they find themselves forced to hire one of us to help them implement IPv6 earlier than needed. In fact, what if they have already decided to sell at this point, say to another provider, because they don't feel like going through this? What if they just don't want to deal with this right now for health or other reasons, which among many others are all legit concerns for small and medium providers.
Does ARIN's charter really include the power to force certain protocols, technical implementations, or even a limited pool of consultants onto businesses and organizations that request address space?
And, even if you say yes (and I would assert a strong "no" when those requirements are not related to the requested items), don't we run the risk of appearing self-serving?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:05 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 18.104.22.168 Dual-Stack
>> Dual-stack refers to configuring both an IPv4 and an IPv6 address or
>> network together on the same network infrastructure.
> While the revision has significant improvements, I still do not
> support PP125 or the petition.
> The main remaining problem is it still requires an IPv6 network to be
> configured, which is onerous; ARIN's role is not to lay down law
> about which protocols applicants use on their networks, only to
> provide addresses, based on the reasonable need-based criteria,
> such as the RFC 2050 guidelines.
> There are still forseeable situations such as non-connected
> networks, where IPv6 addressing may not be needed or desired.
> One way to remedy would be to replace the "Dual Stack" criteria
> with a "Dual Assignment" criteria.
> And specify that IPv6 addresses merely have to be reserved for devices
> or interfaces for use in the future, that the addresses do not have
> to actually be configured or routed at the time of application.
> That should reduce the barrier required for the applicant and ARIN in
> the future, for IPv6 deployment, and give a "nudge" without ARIN
> getting into the business of trying to regulate the architecture and
> choice of protocols IP network implementations.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML