[arin-ppml] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (was: Clarify /29 assignment identification requirement)

[Drake Pallister]

Mr. Herrin,

I don't have the answer, just more questions and some thoughts to ponder.
How related do you think the widespread dragging of the feet about IPv6 is 
to the current economy? No matter what size an ORG is, they would need to 
roll out v6 in a size appropriate to their own size. Maybe it's not just the 
cost of procuring the v6's which gets smaller in proportion as the ORG gets 
bigger, but the other related things involved. Network equipment, servers, 
customer premises equipment, and lots of training-- both for the tech's and 
the semi-tech staff as in help desks people, & probablbly more factors too. 
The current economy isn't anything to be certain about, let alone future 
economy. Maybe there are companies thinking a glut of v4's will fall from 
the sky or that some arctic explorers will find a lost city of  v4 slash 8's 
buried in the ice at the north pole. Some small or x-small v4 operations 
could use a xx-small v6 add-on allocation as a perk at renewal time to get 
them starting to play around with v6's and hopefully use them in operations. 
As far as direct-assigned end-users, I don't see any reason for them to 
desire to increase from their $100 per year maintenance fee to deploy v6 IPs 
as well as buy equipment and invest in training and reconfiguring. There's 
probably aso a comfort zone that some entities don't want to step out of, or 
perhaps don't even have the time to get involved with. For the v4 end users, 
I might think of the old saying, if it's not broken, what needs fixing. 
Trade-offs of v6 for v4 with other RIR's? That wouldn't help v6 
encouragement here. Some countries are going hog wild with v6 yet others 
aren't. Back in 1972, USA needed a gasoline shortage to start considering 
smaller cars. Where did those smaller cars initially come from? Is there any 
correlation between those places and the places where IPv6 is taking off? 
Perhaps North Americans need to get their feet wet with v6.  The multi-year 
v6 discount program didn't seem to spark enough interest or desire. V6 
didn't seem to flow downhill from the biggies to the smalls. Maybe starting 
from the bottom with the small's by giving them some v6's upon annual 
renewal would spark their usage and the interest in v6 would flow uphill? A 
scenario within a small org might be something as follows:  hey ARIN gave us 
some v6's, let's see how we can utilize them. A router here, a switch 
somewhere else, some customers over there, and they may take liking to v6. 
Hence, the phrase getting the feet wet without jumping all the way in.

Just some thoughts.

With all respect,
Drake Pallister


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us>
To: "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundemann at gmail.com>
Cc: "ARIN PPML" <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (was: Clarify /29 
assignment identification requirement)


> On 5/13/12, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 9:54 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> If we gain speedier deployment and the potential loss is capped at a
>>> single /14 of IPv6 address space, how is preemptive assignment not a
>>> huge win?
>>
>> It's not a huge win because it won't make any appreciable difference,
>> it's not actually a win at all.
>>
>> Let's ask the real question here: How does blindly assigning IPv6 to
>> organizations provide any additional motivation to deploy IPv6? If
>> today I don't think I need to deploy IPv6, and tomorrow I have an IPv6
>> block assigned to me out of the blue, how does that change my mind
>> about deploying IPv6 in any way?
>
> I sit on a peering exchange at one of my sites. It's a layer-2 switch.
> The only obstruction to peering on the exchange is that the exchange's
> owner needs to assign IPv6 addresses. Which they don't presently have.
> They're waiting for higher demand before doing the paperwork and
> coughing up the cash.
>
> Nor is this situation unique. Two of my three networks have not done
> anything with IPv6. IPv6 is so poorly used right now that I can't
> justify the expense for the addresses to the customers. I could spend
> the time as an idle priority project and it would get done. But I
> can't spend the money. Not yet. Not until IPv6 is much more heavily
> used.
>
>
>> Yes reducing barriers lowers cost, but the barrier you are proposing
>> to remove is a very low one, perhaps insignificant to the total cost
>> of IPv6 deployment. What is likely more effective from an RIR
>> perspective is adding motivation instead.
>
> Plan A: Debate, argue, maybe even analyze how significant or
> insignificant a barrier we're talking about.
>
> Plan B: Remove the barrier. Look back later to see whether it had an 
> impact.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> -- 
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>