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

[Michel Py]

> Owen DeLong wrote :
> Well… It could also connect you to the growing fraction of the internet and
> provide better performance, address transparency, and a few other benefits.

I'm shocked you still are trying to play this with me. I was on the 6bone, I had IPv6 on a Cisco 2500.
There are ZERO benefits for me deploying today, and at 2% growth rate per year and slowing down, I have every incentive to stay with the 90% of my ecosystem that does not do anything.
I don't have to do anything this year. I don't have anything to do for the next 5 years. IPv6 is not on my agenda, and it is not on any of my competitor's either.
I do not care connecting the carrier-controlled cell phones. Heck, if Youtube and Facebook were to go IPv6-only, that would be a blessing. This is not what we pay employees to do at the office.

As of the getting rid of NAT, you track record is not good. Look at slide 57. IPv6 is NAT-free ?
https://www.slideshare.net/RNIDS/ipv6-transition-and-coexistance-jordi-palet
Not anyone's slides eihter, Jordi's own. I missed the other benefits; instead of NAT44, now I have NINE different competing schemes to deal with ?


> Deploying it sooner rather than later also provides the benefit of being
> able to do it in a controlled manner on a more relaxed timeline rather than
> in a rush when somebody above you finally figures out that they need it yesterday.

Fortunately, I am high enough in the food chain that I get to make this decision.
Zero of my customers have IPv6.
Zero of my suppliers have IPv6.
Zero of my upstreams have IPv6.
Zero of my competitors have IPv6.
Zero of my C-level execs have ever heard of IPv6.
Zero of my board members have ever heard of IPv6.
Zero of all of these have IPv6 on their agenda.

I run the show.

The failure of IPv6 was to ignore the notion of ecosystem. The IPv6 ecosystem, after 20 years, is still a niche market compared to the IPv4 ecosystem.

> As much as I am in favor of IPv6 deployment and use IPv6 every day and look forward eagerly to the
> day when IPv4 is constrained to unimportant islands of in the dark corners of the internet, the
> reality is that this policy does nothing at all to move us closer to that day. Instead, it helps
> some of the people promoting IPv6 feel like they’ve accomplished something while only serving to
> annoy those that are resistant to IPv6 deployment. I’m pro v6 and I oppose the policy as written.

I am glad you see that. There is nothing wrong being pro-v6, but the line you should not cross (nor should ARIN) is getting anti-v4.
The FUD that the IPv4 Internet will stop because of shortages has come, and gone. Any subsequent efforts to sunset IPv4 will be matched in efforts to disable IPv6.

Michel.