[arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?
michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
Tue Aug 27 23:25:22 EDT 2019
> 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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML