[arin-ppml] the bad 240/4 idea, was Solving the squatting problem

[Michel Py]

> Owen DeLong wrote :
> Yeah, when I first proposed it, I didn’t expect it to get traction... I proposed it to make sure the
> community had the debate and to force the arrogant pricks at some of the larger providers that were
> looking forward to permanent customer lock-in to publicly admit to what they were doing. I actually
> expected them to get away with it, but turns out I wasn’t the only one who didn’t like it.

That's where you impressed me, I never thought it would go. You stubborn son of a gun, well done.


>> Michel Py wrote :
>> Anyone needs an Adaptec 1742 ? Mylex DAC-960 EISA ? 3COM 3C597 100M Ethernet EISA card ?
>> If it still is in shrinkwrap, it costs more. Sorry, you don't get the hard drives.

> Owen DeLong wrote :
> Those are some models I haven’t thought about in a long time. For those of us not working in a museum...

We call it the production network. :P  Better than the Smithsonian : it's not only a static display.
Not only the lights are on, it actually operates the plant. There are more of these than you think.

> Hmmm... Well, if you just turn off all the routers, problem solved.

Thought about that. Removing the users will help a lot, too. Especially the ones who would not pass a license to operate a computer, if it was legal to require one :P


>> I have a billion dollars in hardware that does not speak IPv6 and never will.

> This seems to reflect a common misconception about IPv6... It’s not an all or nothing proposition.

It actually is. Dual-stack is not a viable long-term option. It is and has always been a transition mechanism when you commit to IPv6, not a long-term solution. I suggest you read these two articles, if you have not already done so. I find them right on the money.
https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/01/04/is-there-hope-for-ipv6/
https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/02/20/report-on-ipv6-get-ready-for-a-mixed-internet-world/

The only two viable options for the majority are IPv4-only and IPv6-only, and lord help the ones who really require dual-stack.


>> I do not block Google, but I do block Facebook and Netflix. This is not what we pay employees to do.

> Which has what to do with anything?

The part you don't seem to get is that what Facebook and Netflix do is totally irrelevant to my business needs. I could not care less.
If they go IPv6-only without any mechanism and I can't access them from the office, I do not care either. I don't use them.


> I get it... You live in an IPv6 waste land and you’re apparently happy with that.

I'm not happy, I'm pragmatic. You live in an IPv6 ivory tower and you’re apparently happy with that.


> FWIW, I’m using a cablemodem now instead of DSL, but I’m still running an ASN at my house and it’s still dual-stacked.

I got tired to pay ARIN $100/year for the glory of having my home ASN. Was not worth that much to me; I could afford it, but was not doing me any good.
Maybe I should have kept it though; if I were to ask ARIN for an ASN for my home today, I'll have to invent some seriously good buffalo digestion.
Mmmm, what could I do these days with a home ASN ?


> 2019.13: Make ARIN Services IPv6-only
> Suggestion
> Author: Owen DeLong   
> Submitted On: 16 May 2019
> Description: Encourage IPv6 Adoption by making ARIN on-line services increasingly IPv6 only. (Start with,
> say, the 6th of each month being IPv6-only day where ARIN on-line turns off it’s A records and it’s IPv4
> address(es)). Beginning in 2020, additionally turn IPv4 off for the entire month of June. Beginning in
> 2021, add the month of December. In 2022, make it the last month of each quarter (March, June, September,
> December). Beginning in 2023, just turn off IPv4 for all of ARIN on-line.
> Value to Community: This can send a clear message to ARIN customers that IPv6 is the future of the internet
> and help them understand the need to deploy IPv6 within their network. By ramping up to ARIN on-line being
> an IPv6-only web site ver the course of a few years, people have time to deploy and test, but starting in
> 2023, even if you want to transfer in more IPv4, you should be able to get to ARIN via IPv6 to do so.

I oppose this suggestion for two reasons :
1. A futile use of ARIN's staff time to implement.
2. It places an unwanted burden on my org. I do not have any IPv6 resources, someone show me in the contract where using IPv6 is required.

ARIN does not dictate how I configure my network, I thought this would be clear in the wake of the prop 266 and the squatting debate.

If this goes forward, I will make the case that ARIN no longer represents my org's interests, and lobby to split ARIN in two, one part that will handle IPv4, and the other part that handles IPv6.
And if that does not work, I will transfer my asset to the Japanese subsidiary and be happy to pay my member fees to APNIC.

Be real :
People leave California (and other states) every day to go to Florida (or Oregon) because they are tired to pay too much tax.
Companies routinely incorporate in the state of Delaware because it is more business friendly.
Companies span their operations overseas because of both.

You want me to start shopping for a better RIR ?
You want to start the v4/v6 balkanization / schism ?

I'm ready. My IPv4 island is here to stay. Looks like you barely managed to keep your IPv6 ivory tower up, don't take it for granted yet.
I ain't going anywhere. What do you want, Owen ? the schism ? A war between the IPv4-only camp and the IPv6-only camp ?
You are not turning IPv4 off. Get used to it.

Michel.