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

[Martin Hannigan]

“Have the ability”. Not “must use”.  Networks without v6 work perfectly
fine. Networks without v4 (or CGNAT et al) do not. The V6 reality is its
still swiss cheese. And its going to be for a long time.

I encourage everyone to use v6. I also prefer to let the marketplace sort
out good and bad networks. Reality hurts sometimes. This is the reality of
v6.

Opposed.

Tks,

-M<





On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 10:54 <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:

> My own entry into the IPv6 world began with a mandate issued by the
> Executive Office of the President, which mandated that after a magic date
> that all Federal networks, and therefore those of their connected
> contractors have the ability to use IPv6.
>
> Back in 2008, this was not as easy as it seems today.  While most of the
> basic services like DNS, SMTP and HTTP(s) servers had the needed support
> in the most recent versions of the software, a whole lot of stuff ran on
> earlier versions, which began the rush to first get to the latest version
> so that we can turn IPv6 on to meet the requirement. Even Windows XP, the
> most recent version at that time of Microsoft Workstation Software had to
> have IPv6 added, as it was not enabled by default.
>
> The people I worked with had put IPv6 in their RFPs for a few years, so
> there was not as much hardware requiring a forklift upgrade.
>
> Today, almost anything more than a few years old has IPv6 enabled by
> default.  It is almost unwise to have it turned off, as it can be used as
> a bypass around your security that you do not even think of, because of
> sayings like "This is an IPv4 ONLY shop", does not mean it is not present,
> even just locally on your lan bypassing any restrictions that you may
> have.
>
> At some point in the hopefully not too distant future, IPv6 will become
> the main protocol on the Internet. In a lot of residences it is already
> there with many major sites and large ISPs already having it in place.
>
> I see this draft policy as more of a nudge than a push in the right
> direction.  As pointed out earlier, one of the main uses of this policy is
> to direct enterprises that wish to expand their IPv4 inventory to adopt
> IPv6, at least in the limited extent of those who interact with ARIN.
> Often this is an IS/IT group who should be able to have IPv6 working in
> less than a day, or can assign an intern to do it. Without such a
> requirement, as pointed out by others, they will NEVER move.
>
> Even with this policy, businesses that see no need to have IPv6 will still
> not have to face this policy unless they are obtaining more IPv4
> addresses.
>
> Maybe we would have been better off had China had used up the remaining
> address space much earlier than 2011 for its academic networks, instead of
> going to IPv6.  It would have forced these issues years earlier.
>
> It is the right thing for anyone part of the Internet to have IPv6. CIDR,
> NAT, CGnat and whatever the next band aid is not going to stretch IPv4
> forever, and the complications of all these devices, instead of an end to
> end connection is going to make things harder for those that remain on
> IPv4 and all the extra hardware to share the limited address space.
>
> I think the time is right now to step forward and take a stand.  If you
> want to increse your percentage of your IPv4 holdings, you need to be
> taking steps to also be ready for the future. That future is IPv6.  The
> policy is needed, and even the ARIN Board has agreed that anyone with a
> need for numbers need to consider a move to IPv6.
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 14, 2019, at 20:14 , Michel Py <
> michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Owen,
> >>
> >>> Owen DeLong wrote :
> >>> You seem to be assuming he’s in the internet business. He made it
> pretty clear he’s talking from
> >>> the enterprise perspective where the internet isn’t the revenue
> generating portion of the business,
> >>> but merely one of the many tools used by the business to accomplish
> its revenue goals.
> >>
> >> Indeed. The Internet is not the same thing as the Internet business.
> There is no Internet without customers. Some customers, such as the mobile
> market and the low-end residential market can be forced into IPv6 because
> they control nothing, but the enterprise market is not subject to this. The
> enterprise adoption is a trickle, for reasons I have explained publicly for
> years.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry to say it bluntly, but the enterprise business is about
> making money, not saving the world from an impending doom that has not
> happened. I say it again : the problem of IPv6 is that it is a solution to
> a problem that I do not have.
> >
> > Well… More accurately, it is a solution to a problem that you feel it is
> better to live with than to solve. In short, you feel that the barriers to
> implementing the cure are worse than living with the symptoms of the
> disease.
> >
> > Like or to, the need for NAT is a problem at least most enterprises
> have. The fact that we have an entire generation of engineers who have
> grown up not understanding the advantages of end-to-end addressing (and
> don’t understand that stateful inspection is a dependency for NAT, but can
> be implemented without header mutilation) further complicates the
> recognition of this problem, but you and I are both old enough to remember
> an IPv4 internet with transparent addressing and the benefits thereof.
> >
> > Making matters worse, enterprises failing to deploy IPv6 enjoy all of
> the advantages of the toxic polluter business model. The costs of their
> refusal to move forward with the rest of the internet are borne not by
> those making said refusal, but pushed off on those sharing the internet
> with them who cannot complete their transitions so long as there is a
> critical mass of enterprises holding back progress.
> >
> >> 6 years ago, you thought that I was full of it. We had a couple beers
> and you respectfully dismissed me as an IPv4-only crackpot.
> >
> > Oh, I still think you’re full of it to some extent. I don’t think I
> dismissed you as a crackpot so much as we respectfully agreed to disagree
> on several areas. I think little has changed in the intervening years.
> >
> >> With you, I do not seek revenge. You are a formidable opponent and I
> respect you as such, but look back in the past.
> >
> >> From my perspective, there is nothing to seek revenge for. I don’t see
> you as an opponent so much as just someone with a differing opinion and
> operating on a different time line.
> >
> > You feel that the self-serving advantages of delaying IPv6 deployment in
> your environment outweigh the broader public interest advantages of
> proceeding to a point where IPv4 deprecation can begin. From a purely Ayn
> Rand/Gordon Gecko oriented perspective, this is one available philosophy.
> It’s the same mentality that will likely lead to human extinction through
> global climate change… It’s the attitude that a business should first and
> foremost maximize profit above any other concern.
> >
> > It’s not a philosophy I embrace. Does a business have an obligation to
> make a profit? Certainly. Does a business have other duties besides
> maximizing profit? IMHO, yes. IMHO, a business has a responsibility to the
> community(ies) in which it operates. It has an obligation not to dump
> toxins into the local rivers for those living downstream to deal with. It
> has an obligation not to partially offload the payment of its employees
> onto the taxpayers (a la a certain large well known chain of stores). It
> has an obligation to function as a supportive member of the community
> providing a general benefit to the community and not act as a parasite
> consuming the community in question.
> >
> >> 6 years ago, when we shared a couple beers on stage. I told you so. You
> did not listen. You were wrong.
> >
> > This will likely not surprise you, but I disagree. Even then, I agreed
> that enterprises would likely be the last class of laggards procrastinating
> the deployment of IPv6.
> >
> > You say that this procrastination will likely continue indefinitely. I
> feel that its days are numbered. Not as short as I’d like to see, but I
> believe sooner than you expect.
> >
> >>> I disagree with Michel in a number of areas. He and I have had frank
> discussions about this.
> >>> However, the points he raises are legitimate and we ignore or dismiss
> them at our peril.
> >>
> >> I am glad you realize the peril part of it. 6 years ago, you never
> thought I would be challenging you publicly on this. 6 years ago, you would
> not even have considered the possibility that we would have this talk on
> this mailing list.
> >
> > Actually, I am not at all surprised to see you still publicly
> challenging me on this. I may not have predicted 6 years ago that it would
> be you, but I fully expected some contingent of IPv6 opponents would still
> exist in the enterprise realm and that this discussion would still be
> ongoing.
> >
> >> There is one more thing you should realize about enterprise business :
> they like people who have been steady in predicting the future.
> >> I'm on track.
> >
> > Meh… I’m fond of the saying that Prior Performance does NOT guarantee
> Future Results.
> >
> > The nice thing about the enterprise world is that no enterprise is for
> ever and new ones come to life every day. There is a time coming in the not
> too distant future where deploying a new enterprise without IPv6 will seem
> as silly as deploying one without IPv4 today.
> >
> > At that point, then it’s just a matter of time before a combination of
> ever increasing quantities of new enterprises combined with attrition of
> old ones shifts the dynamic.
> >
> > Things may move slower that many of us would like because of the drag
> induced by people who share your mindset, but, nonetheless, time is on the
> side of those of us who believe IPv6 will eventually replace most of the
> current IPv4 utilization on the internet.
> >
> > Eventually (assuming we manage not to go extinct due to climate change
> in the meantime), we will get there. The question is will we ever realize
> the wisdom of ripping off the bandage, or, will we continue to peel at the
> edges making a slightly lower level of pain last for a much much longer
> time period. Personally, I prefer a shorter period of slightly more
> significant disruption. You obviously prefer to endure a prolonged period
> of pain (or denial about pain in your case).
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >_______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191115/d7129651/attachment.htm>