[arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

['hostmaster@uneedus.com']

In 2007, we still had /8's to assign to RIR's, and a free pool at ARIN. 
No one wanted to be the first to deploy IPv6. I would have never done it 
myself if it was not for the US Federal Government requirement to have all 
networks (including contractor networks at NASA) speaking IPv6 in 2008. A 
lot of people in the ARIN region did not take IPv6 seriously until after 
the ARIN free pool was exhausted in 2016.

The original proponents of IPv6 thought that it could be deployed before 
the IPv4 free pool was exhausted.  This turned out to be false.  The 
statement that IPv6 would be deployed "in the next 2 to 3 years" is 
actually true, as many of the major destinations and CDN's have deployed 
IPv6. Google's IPv6 share was less than 1% in 2010 but it did exist.  My 
network was part of that traffic.

In 2007, Google's IPv6 traffic was near 0%. In 2016 when the ARIN free 
pool ran out, it was 5%. In 2019, it has grown to 28.50%, or more than one 
in four.  While some see this as a failure of IPv6, I see it as a success.

While market forces and the transfer market are pressing unused IPv4 space 
into service, eventually this will fail, based upon the simple fact that 
IPv4 has fewer addresses than the population of the Earth. There is a 
limit on how much unused/underused IPv4 space can be found.

At some point, moving to IPv6 and its associated costs will become a less 
expensive option than continuing to seek more IPv4 space. This includes 
current large IPv4 players that may choose to go IPv6 and sell most of 
their holdings when they can get the most money, keeping only enough space 
for CGNAT for their customers. Under current rules, they could even get 
4.10 space for their CGNAT and sell ALL their non 4.10 IPv4 holdings. 
Eventually IPv6 will be the normal internet access with IPv4 access 
becoming a "value added" service, since maintaining CGNAT is a cost. 
Eventually, we will reach the tipping point where market forces will start 
driving down the cost of IPv4 space after more than 1/2 of users and hosts 
have IPv6 available to them.

I see that 2007 statement as visionary.  I see nothing false about the 
statements that were expressed, even in 2019.

While the timeframe for IPv6 to be the majority protocol is not now known, 
the shear growth of the Internet will cause this to happen at some point. 
I do not think there is any need for ARIN to be split into IPv4 and IPv6 
divisions.

I do not see myself as an IPv6 zealot.  I was forced into it by business 
reasons. At that time there was not as much support as today but I was 
forced to do because of the federal mandate.  I would guess that 95% of 
the effort I went through in 2007 would not exist today as at that time 
IPv6 was not automatically available in hosts and routers.  Large ISP's 
have simply turned IPv6 on in their new CPE, and OS's of today 
automatically support IPv6.  Thus in today's enviroment, it is possible 
for many to have IPv6 with zero effort or knowledge.  Today's IT 
professional should already have the needed IPv6 skills to add IPv6 to 
their networks.  I see nothing wrong to use ARIN policy to give a nudge to 
those receiving IPv4 resources in the ARIN region a push to bring IPv6 to 
their networks.  This is what the 2007 statement suggests.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, Michel Py wrote:

>> hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote :
>> I noticed this item from 7 May 2007 that I think would support my suggestion:
>
> Unless I have been caught in a time warp, the current year is 2019. In 2007, one could still argue that IPv6 would be deployed "in the next 2 to 3 years".
>
> I propose to split ARIN in two different organizations : one that will deal with IPv4, and another that will deal with IPv6.
>
> It is clear that the balkanization of the Internet is happening. Although I do respect them for their ideas and the courage to stick to them, I am growing tired of having too many IPv6 zealots trying to stir ARIN policies towards IPv6 while the rest of the world has decided to stick with IPv4 for the next 15 years.
>
> I say loudly, IPv6 has failed for the last 20 years to become the prominent protocol. I urge the ARIN leadership to weigh their options : keep supporting the loser, or split.
> Or have us the privileged (with a parent or child company in another RIR) transfer resources there.
>
> Although I do not pretend to represent the IPv4 camp, I wish that the ARIN leadership had the foresight to understand that, an all-out war between IPv4 and IPv6 will have the majority of ARIN lean towards IPv4.
>
> Here is my message : I am tired of IPv6 zealots trying to shove it down my throat.20 years of
> failure is enough. Stop, or be ready for war. You wanted the balkanization; you got it.
>
>
>> Owen DeLong wrote :
>> As much as I am an advocate for IPv6 deployment (and I think it’s pretty well known that I am),
>> I don’t think such a policy would be useful or effective in advancing IPv6 deployment.
>
> I am glad you posted that. I was about to flush you with the bath water, or feed you to the lions.
>
> Michel
>
>