[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

[Owen DeLong]

> On Nov 6, 2019, at 15:01 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> To those who oppose because they find the mechanism in the proposal is not effective do you have an alternative and more effective text to propose so the author may consider a change. I guess if you the current is ineffective the alternative would have to be more complex but still objective. 
> 
I oppose because the mechanism is both ineffective and offensive.

I’m as big an IPv6 zealot as anyone (Michel will likely attest to this), and I see no point whatsoever in trying once again to make ARIN into the policy version police.

ARIN has done a great deal to promote IPv6 and I think that is to be applauded and I encourage them to continue to do so.
ARIN is working towards developing educational programs which will further enhance this outreach.

I don’t think there is a role in policy here beyond what we have already done… Make it really easy to get IPv6 addresses.

IPv4 will naturally become harder to get over time as the transfer market reaches increasing scarcity and prices are driven higher.

As the price of continuing to be IPv4 only continues to increase, you’ll see a greater increase in IPv6 adoption.

There’s really no need for this policy and I think it is inappropriate to try and use strong-arm policy tactics on IPv4 to try and force people to jump through IPv6 hoops just to get v4 space via transfer.

Note, that we do require IPv6 deployment if you want to get space from the 4.10 pool, since that pool was set aside for IPv6 deployment.
> The point I believe is not about creating hurdles for IPv4 but a natural and quiet obvious move to what IS the current Internet protocol and what must work in order for Internet to survive. Otherwise why would ARIN's Board issue such resolution in that sense ? And there are plenty of other Internet related organizations in the same direction.
> 
If organizations don’t wish to remain connected to the entire internet as organizations come online without IPv4 capabilities in the future, then they are free to do so and it is not the job of an RIR to protect them from their own short-sightedness.
> There will be conflicts in either cases, if things a left loose are they are at the people's pleasure there will be as mentioned, growing conflicts regarding IPv4 exhaustion and they tend to grow quiet fastly. If things push for transition to IPv6 (in this case much more softly) there will be conflicts with those who believe they have the right to hold themselves and all others to the past.
> 
Currently, nobody is holding anyone anywhere. There is some truth to the fact that remaining IPv4 only is a little bit like a toxic-polluter business model in that others who wish to maintain the ability to contact your organization on the internet are forced to deal with  IPv4. However, eventually organizations that refuse to make themselves available over IPv6 will be reachable by a declining fraction of the internet. Not only because some will start wanting to stop supporting IPv4 on their networks, but also because there will eventually be new entrants that simply can’t or won’t deploy IPv4 just to talk to organizations that are holding out as IPv4 only until the bitter end.

Today, there’s a significant installed base that doesn’t have IPv6, but that’s a number which is continuing to decline.
Today, there’s almost nobody on the internet that doesn’t have IPv4 in some form or other, but that’s a number which is increasing and will continue to increase.

The further along these trend lines we go, the more organizations will recognize that IPv6 is necessary regardless of their state of IPv4. This proposed policy will do nothing to accelerate that and will not meaningfully help IPv6 adoption.
> Even more important is that due to these ones willing to wash their hands and deny evolution making *all others will be paying the price* due not only the problems caused by the lack of IPv4 but also to the price increasing they will have to pay should they to need to purchase any extra chunk of addresses to be able to exist in the internet while there is a feasible solution available.
> That's why it is very reasonable and fair that this same impacted community desire to have more mechanisms to that direction and is completely legit they come out from a change in the policy
> 
There are no victims here, only volunteers. If you don’t want to pay the price of remaining on the IPv4 network, then don’t. Disconnect from those who you feel are holding you back. If enough feel as you do, this will surely be the most effective way to motivate them, as their loss of customers and revenue will serve to provide incentive to change their ways.
> Between both types of conflicts my bet is that the second which means evolution will prevail.
> 
Evolution always prevails, but it often takes different courses than the ones we expect.

I am hopeful that IPv6 will prevail in the evolutions that come, but it’s entirely possible that some other solution which I would consider far more hideous (think CGNAT on steroids) will somehow gain economic advantage and prevail. It’s possible we all end up switching to something that doesn’t even look like IP in the end. It’s possible some new development will come along rendering all of this moot.

One thing is for sure… Attempts to control the direction of evolution by trying to force people to do things they don’t want rarely have the desired result and often create a backlash that is far more harmful to the intent than just waiting.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191106/521fa602/attachment.htm>