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

[Owen DeLong]

On May 13, 2012, at 7:23 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

> On 5/13/12, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> [snip]
>> 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.
> 
> I am in favor of B.    Remove all barriers to IPv6 adoption that are
> easy to remove.
> 
> Bureaucracy,  application procedures, requirement for signatures,  etc,
> are easy to remove.  They didn't exist with IPv4  until there was an
> exhaustion problem.

This is not true. There have been application procedures dating back to when all allocations were issued by Jon Postel himself.
Admittedly, they were somewhat less formal and had fewer steps earlier in the process than later, and, more steps and greater scrutiny has been added in reaction to the exhaustion problem, but, even when it was still InterNIC and there was no exhaustion problem, there were forms and application procedures that were necessary.

The lack of required signatures created much of the difficulty we now have in draining the IPv4 swamp and reclaiming underutilized resources. I do not advocate repeating this mistake.

> 
> And they are an obstacle to IPv6 deployment whose impact is difficult
> or impossible
> to measure.

They really aren't.

> 
> It is justifiable to take a small chunk of IPv6 address space and do that.
> There are risks involved ---   but  in terms of risk measurement,
> exhaustion of IPv4
> with little/no  IPv6 deployment   is a larger risk.

It really isn't. It's only really a larger risk to those organizations that have chosen not to deploy IPv6 for whatever reason. At this point, I am comfortable with allowing them to suffer the consequences and costs of their (in)actions.

Owen
(Speaking only for myself and not in my role as an AC member)