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

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Fri Sep 2 16:01:25 EDT 2011


On Sep 2, 2011, at 9:22 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:

> 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
> 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).

That's not the impression I get.  While there are definitely some
anti-stewardship sentiments expressed here, they don't hold much
weight with me, and I don't get the impression they are very
influential in the overall result of the policy process.

In fact, one of the main goals of the shared /10 was to conserve IPv4
by sharing it.  If we wanted IPv4 to run out faster, we would've let
each ISP get their own block of space and not allowed them all to use
the same one.

> 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.

There's a proposal up for discussion to allow meeting longer-term
needs with transfers (which I support), but I've seen a number of good
arguments that allowing some orgs to buy 10 year's supply will both
drive up IPv4 prices and give them a vested interest in delaying
implementation of IPv6.


> (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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list