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

[Jeffrey Lyon]

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
> Not an entirely accurate characterization of my view.
>
> I see IPv4 insufficiency as an inevitable consequence of continued
> growth of the internet. To claim otherwise is to assume that one
> of the following sentences must be true:
>
>        1.      At some point in the very near future, the internet will stop
>                growing and demand for more public addresses will cease.
>
>        2.      There exists a technology which will provide access to all
>                required internet services without requiring additional address
>                resources to meet the demands of continued growth.
>
> or
>
>        3.      There will exist some combinations of limited growth and
>                technologies which will provide a globally acceptable
>                subset of current internet services so as to remove the
>                need to adapt to a protocol which provides an address
>                larger than 32 bits.
>
> I support the exchange of IPv4 until such a time that it becomes
> naturally cost prohibitive so long as those on the receiving end
> of that IPv4 exchange meet the same requirements that would
> exist for them to get space from the RIRs while there is still a
> free pool.
>
> I do not support the creation of market speculation in IPv4 addresses
> as a way to inflict pain on CxOs as a motivation to deploy IPv6.
> While I agree it would likely be effective and, indeed, I could probably
> benefit greatly from such a move, I think it is contrary to the interests
> of the wider community and would be an unnecessarily disruptive
> approach to solving the problem.
>
>> 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
>
> I would say that there definitely are. However, what they ever really
> needed and what they will need in the coming future are two different
> metrics.
>
>> 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
>
> I tend to doubt this. The number of things that are already moving
> to IPv6, the increase in the IPv6 growth curve since February, and
> the rate at which IPv6 is being deployed all point to the fallacy of
> such an argument.
>
> Finally, there is not a sufficient critical mass of those organizations
> to govern the actions of the global internet overall. Instead, they may
> become islands disconnected from what will rapidly become the
> majority of the internet until they migrate their environments to IPv6
> as well.
>
>> businesses are taking IPv6 seriously. Advertising IPv6 support seems
>> like more of a marketing gimmick than a realistic push for support by
>> many companies.
>>
>
> Interesting... Care to name some names? (I'm not above a name
> and shame of vendors that aren't doing the right things with IPv6
> at this point). (Are you paying attention, Linksys?)
>
> I will point to http://www.he.net as a counter-example.
>
> Yes, we're getting lots of marketing mileage out of our IPv6 support,
> but, it's most definitely a genuine push for support on our part.
> I think you would be hard pressed to claim that our IPv6 support
> is in any way incomplete or strictly for purposes of marketing.
>
> I gain no marketing advantage of the fact that my home is fully
> dual stacked (except a few devices that can't do IPv6 yet)
> other than being able to say so when I give IPv6 talks.
> What I gained instead is:
>
>        1.      Assurance that I won't be left behind as the world moves.
>        2.      Experience and knowledge on IPv6 operations.
>        3.      The ability to talk with authority about real world IPv6
>                deployment experience. (Yes, this took some additional
>                experiences outside my home, too, but, those early
>                experiences dual-stacking my house helped a lot).
>
> Owen
>
>

Owen,

I concede that there are many advanced users such as yourself and
numerous progressive companies such as HE that are fully embracing
IPv6 but I do not see the largest and most well known companies taking
the same lead.

My strategy is to work with my vendors to encourage IPv6 support, but
I am not to the point where I feel it appropriate to chastise them.

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