[arin-ppml] New Entrants shut out? (Was: ARIN-2011-5: ... - Last Call

[Jeffrey Lyon]

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 30, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Jimmy,
>>>
>>> At the moment we have a system that favors small players at the
>>> expense of commerce. It also fails to create economic incentives to
>>> migrate to IPv6. Note that C-Squad execs speak dollars, not value to
>>> the community.
>>>
>>> I would argue that the current system appears to be creating quite a few
>>> incentives to add IPv6 capabilities if you look at the current uptick in v6
>>> statistics since Feb. 3.
>>>
>>> So long as we continue to squeeze blood out of the IPv4 turnip,
>>> companies will continue to delay IPv6. The choices become the Lyon
>>> strategy of letting the market set the price and encourage natural
>>> migration, or the Owen strategy of taking IPv4 off life support.
>>>
>>> I don't think it is on life support and I think a natural evolution is
>>> occurring. Some organizations which are unable to look beyond short term
>>> dollars will have faster and more disruptive migration processes while
>>> others with better vision have been planning and executing their migration
>>> strategies for years.
>>> The longer you wait, the more rushed, expensive, and disruptive your
>>> inevitable transition will be.
>>> Owen
>>>
>>
>> Owen,
>>
>> I agree that there are some incentives to migrate to IPv6 and that
>> companies who wait will suffer. My point is that these incentives are
>> not economic in nature which is what will be necessary to motivate
>> companies to act. Companies are the driving force behind either
>> creating or removing roadblocks to adoption (eg. carrier support,
>> vendor support, and so forth).
>>
> I will say that not ALL incentives are economic in nature.
>
> However, the economy of failing to implement IPv6 is a pretty
> strong incentive if you fully understand the results.
>
> Becoming increasingly disconnected from more and more of your
> potential customer base should, for any rational business, create
> a strong economic incentive to do something different. That is the
> inevitable result of remaining IPv4-only.
>
> Further, the costs at the carrier and the subscriber level of continuing
> to attempt to maintain some level of connectivity to a growing
> internet incapable of producing additional IPv4 addresses for those
> new connections will significantly increase the costs of remaining
> on IPv4 and keeping it functional. These costs are only increased
> by failing to add IPv6 capabilities.
>
>> I fundamentally disagree that we should taking the position of
>> "migrate now or suffer later," rather create the economic incentive
>> for a natural progression to IPv6 without having to twist any arms or
>> cause any suffering.
>>
> Huh?
>
> 1.      I think that migrate now is a misnomer. What I am saying is
>        "Add IPv6 capabilities to your network now, or, you will,
>        inevitably suffer later."
>
>        That's not to say I am trying to cause that suffering or that
>        anyone is out to inflict additional suffering on those who
>        fail to add IPv6 capabilities. The NATURAL CONSEQUENCE
>        of failing to adapt to a changing and growing internet is
>        suffering. It will happen to those that do not add IPv6
>        capabilities no matter what anyone else does or does not
>        do.
>
> 2.      There is already a great deal of economic incentive there
>        for anyone who takes the time to understand the economics
>        of the situation. IPv4 will inevitably become increasingly
>        more costly.
>
>        This policy is intended to allow a single /10 to be used
>        for purposes that will otherwise require multiple providers
>        to collectively use much more than one /10 and will ultimately
>        result in accelerating the time at which IPv4 becomes
>        more expensive and accelerating and increasing the
>        resulting suffering.
>
>> Very rarely are technologies widely adopted on account of a decree.
>> Successful adoption occurs when migrating to a new technology is an
>> all around attractive prospect. I would be willing to hypothesize that
>> there are about equal numbers of people who want immediate adoption of
>> IPv6 and those who want to see IPv4 continue to survive for a number
>> of years, at least until IPv6 can gain a more stable footing.
>>
> I think I can say that almost everyone wishes that IPv4 could continue to survive
> for many more years. I wish that were true.
>
> I think, instead, you can say that there is some disagreement among professionals
> as to whether this is actually a viable strategy or not.
>
> I don't know of anyone among the IPv6 cheerleading crowd (and I'm pretty
> sure I have about as much of an IPv6 cheerleader perspective as anyone)
> who wouldn't love to see a way for IPv4 to provide a real solution to continued
> growth in the internet without the disruption or inconvenience or costs of
> deploying a new protocol. The difference comes in the subtlety of what
> people are willing to accept as a "real solution".
>
> Some of us want to see the internet continue to be able to provide at least
> the services and capabilities that exist today. Some are willing to accept
> a greatly reduced subset. Some of us want to see expansion and continued
> innovation.
>
> For the first camp (existing capabilities), IPv4 has a very limited lifespan,
> but, until the RIRs all run out and maybe even for a few months thereafter,
> we can kind of limp along and keep that somewhat functional.
>
> For the second camp, there is NAT444 and if you are willing to reduce the
> internet to basic HTTP/HTTPs and SMTP and little else, then, you can
> probably keep IPv4 somewhat serviceable for a few more years.
>
> Finally, for the third camp, there really is no remaining viability in IPv4.
> The end-to-end model failed with the introduction of NAT. The peer to
> peer nature has been reduced to the consumer/provider model as
> a result and services which people want (remote access to resources
> at home, for example) have to involve rendezvous servers hosted by
> other providers to be made possible. There are so many cool things
> that we already know how to do and have the technology for that
> cannot be implemented for lack of end-to-end connections that I
> think there is additional economic incentive available here as well.
>
> Indeed, the question is not whether or not IPv6 has economic
> incentives. The question is how to best explain and convey those
> economic incentives to the CxOs of the world.
>
> In the meantime, this policy seeks to provide a way that many providers can
> coordinate their use of a very limited amount of IPv4 space for a
> specific purpose rather than requiring each of them to get their own
> distinct space for this purpose.
>
> Owen
>
>

Owen,

I get the feeling that you see IPv4 as a lame horse that needs to be
taken out back. While that's certainly one approach, my logic has
always been to allow the free exchange of IPv4 until such a time that
it becomes naturally cost prohibitive. CxO's talk $, and letting the
market make IPv4 costly is a quick and dirty way to convey the
benefits of IPv6.

At the risk of getting too far off track, I give you this scenario.
There may be major ISP's who were early entrants and managed to obtain
more IP's than they ever really needed. Perhaps they have austerity
plans that allow them to keep chugging on IPv4 for years. Perhaps
their fellow competitors will do the same and IPv6 will fail to gain
immediate traction. It seems that only small to medium sized
businesses are taking IPv6 seriously. Advertising IPv6 support seems
like more of a marketing gimmick than a realistic push for support by
many companies.

-- 
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions