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

[Fernando Frediani]

Thanks Owen for the great inputs.

I would say that probably nobody would expect a 100% deployment in minimal
details and in every device but rather a prove that it has been deployed,
is being routed and used. In other words a real commitment that
organization is doing its part.

I think also in a eventual proposal there could be well defined exceptions
at the discretion of ARIN's staff when properly justified the unavoidable
limitations.

Fernando

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, 12:20 Owen DeLong, <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Aug 27, 2019, at 22:07 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I may be wrong but it looks like that for some people at some point the
> only thing that matters is the sensation someone may be trying to tell them
> how to do things than if IPv6 should be deployed or not.
> Right, how long more will we be in this back and forth of "I know I have
> to deploy IPv6 but I will do on my own time" ? How long more we will hear
> things like "there is no other way out of transfer market" and "it is
> natural thing to buy more IPv4 to be in business" and then right after
> "Don't tell me I have to deploy IPv6".
>
> There have been times in the past when deploying IPv6 had challenges,
> concerns or limitations, but now a days let's be honest, there are probably
> none.
>
> In fairness, this is not entirely true. The following challenges still
> remain in some situations:
>
> + Providers with a heavy reliance on MPLS for traffic engineering have no
> good path to managing IPv6 traffic engineering with their existing tools.
> + There are still a significant number of providers that are not offering
> IPv6 to their customers
> - There are workarounds for this, but they come with significant
> tradeoffs and in some cases real costs.
> + Human Factors
> - Perception that NAT==Security
> - Limited familiarly with IPv6
> - Fear of the unknown
> - Other priorities
> - Perceived lack of a business case
> - Engineers not well able to articulate the business case to the C-Suite
> - Entrenched software base that is not yet ported, especially custom
> internal applications and large legacy systems
>
> I’m not saying that these issues are insurmountable, and I’m not saying we
> don’t need to deploy IPv6. Indeed, I’ve been beating the IPv6 drum pretty
> hard for many years now. However, statements like “there are probably no
> remaining challenges” do not reflect reality and reduce the credibility of
> your other statements in this regard.
>
> We are in 2019, nearly 2020 and it seems there are still a significant
> amount of people that wishes to keep supporting the transfer market rather
> than do the obvious that we all know will make the Internet ecosystem to
> keep evolving, perhaps with less conflicts.
> And what Albert is proposing to discuss is fair and very much reasonable,
> nothing out of order: simply the organization to show it is doing its job
> (or is there anyone the believes IPv6 is still just accessory and can wait
> another 20 years ?) in order that is can use the transfer mechanism of
> IPv4. He didn't suggest anything different than that.
>
>
> There’s lots of monetary interest in the transfer market, and where
> there’s a perception of money to be made, voices and advocacy will follow.
> This is an unfortunate side-effect of capitalism and market economies.
>
> I never said Albert was out of line, but I do not think Albert’s proposal
> will yield the desired results, nor do I think it is good registry policy.
> (See my previous comments on the proposal).
>
> Owen
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190828/7b12e2b3/attachment.htm>