[arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....

[Jeffrey Lyon]

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Chris Engel <cengel at conxeo.com> wrote:
> My sole point with this discussion, which seems to have gone off on a tangent, is that ARIN is not and should not become (IMO) "The Society for the Promotion of IPv6".  ARIN is the organization that is responsible for number resources in this region..... and it should (IMO) pretty much be neutral in how it approaches that responsibility in regards to IPv4, IPv6 or IPv99. It shouldn't entertain the idea of making number resources of one type harder to get then another in order to promote the other. Nor should it act to reduce the amount of one type of resource available in THIS REGION in order to promote the use of another variety.
>
> More specifically ARIN shouldn't entertain the notion of transferring IPv4 resources that will be needed in THIS region out of the region simply because that is likely to reduce the available pool of IPv4 more quickly and thus spur the adoption of IPv6. That, IMO, would be an abdication of it's core responsibility.  If there is some other reason for allowing such transfers that DOES serve the interests of the community using IPv4 in this region, then great. That would be a legitimate rationale to support such policies...but astro-turfing IPv4 address space because maybe it'll help IPv6 growth isn't.
>
> Let IPv6 stand or fall on it's own merit. Make sure that there are no significant barriers in terms of Policy that would prevent people who want and have a legitimate need for IPv6 address space to obtain it (I think you guys already have that pretty much well in hand) but don't entertain the idea of standing behind folks with a cattle prod pushing them there if they think they are better served for the time being remaining on IPv4.
>
>
>
> Christopher Engel
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>

I've been speaking out from time to time on this same subject. Most of
the support for the /10 of shared transition space seemed to have this
same goal in mind (deplete IPv4 faster). Many recent proposals or
rejection of new proposals appear to have the same end goal (kill
IPv4, advance IPv6).

There are a handful of dominant voices on PPML that are against
ownership of IPv4 at all costs. They blame the speculators. On the
other hand, what if it costs me $500,000 to adopt IPv6 but I can
satisfy my 10 year requirement by purchasing $200,000 in IPv4. ARIN
should allow this.

(Note: I support IPv6 and am running IPv6 on my network currently, so
my intent is not to avoid IPv6 adoption).

IPv6 is not catching on as quickly as we had all hoped. Some of us are
still waiting for vendor support. Despite ARIN initiatives to spread
the word about IPv4 depletion, most networks are not taking it
seriously and are still only announcing IPv4 space. In fact, what
little IPv6 we do have today has AS6939 as the center of its universe
with much larger carriers sitting in its orbit. As a practical matter,
IPv6 is good and its needed, however, as a modern day effort it would
still be sitting on the sidelines if HE were not dragging it through
the snow.

ARIN needs to treat IPv4 and IPv6 as equals, and allow IPv4 space to
trade freely. Once it becomes too expensive to buy IPv4, many will
begin to see IPv6 as the more attractive option.

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