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

Michel Py michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
Thu Nov 7 17:00:37 EST 2019

Hi Matthew,

> Matthew Wilder wrote :
> I have observed the same trend over the years, and I completely agree that enterprise adoption lags.

Where do you put adoption in the enterprise at, today ? It is not easy to get reliable data, but I'm in the high single-digit rate.

> I think it can be explained a number of ways. In my experience wearing my IPv6 deployment
> hat at a major ISP, I know that we enabled IPv6 for our consumer subscribers who were not
> asking for it. At the same time, we made it available to enterprise subscribers, and there
> has been a (very) slow trickle of  enterprises adding IPv6 to their services. For a consumer
> to get IPv6 on their service requires no effort. For an enterprise to enable IPv6 on their
> network is some non-zero effort. That is perhaps the briefest summary explaining the delta.

It is a good explanation. IPv6 will "install itself" on mobiles and on consumer CPE because you push new firmware / software centrally.
Some SMBs that use the ISP box/modem/whatever will get it automatically as well, which has caused a myriad of issues.
As soon as the router's configuration is no longer in the hands of the carrier or the ISP, IPv6 will not "install itself".

> those organizations who do not adopt IPv6 are beginning to create a cost to those who are adopting IPv6.

The cost has always been there. It has always been assumed that there would be significant pain during the transition period.
What has changed is that now the transition period is 40 years, while everyone said 2 or 3 years tops.

Allow me to compared it to Y2K. Y2K was a pain, but there was no way around. It was front page news.
I know some IT managers that actually welcomed it : easy to justify the extra resources, and happy to use it as a pretext to throw in the junk pile old clunkers that were note Y2K compliant, even if a BIOS update would have fixed it.

If we were in a similar situations, enterprises would deploy IPv6 the same way they went through the Y2K thing.
IPv6 is a different animal. First, all of the promised features that would make IPv6 nice were either undelivered or solved by an IPv4 equivalent.
Leaving IPv6 with only one thing : more bits.
Then, we ran short. The Internet has not stopped. The deadline has come and gone, and nothing happened.

> but where a limited demand for IPv6 support creates economic disadvantage for those who would otherwise prefer IPv6.

Again, it's timing. Had the plan worked, you would not have this issue. Now, it's a war. IPv4 and IPv6 are competing for the same resources and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I have stated this publicly for years.

> The response is that IPv6 is not supported, often not even on the roadmap.

Because it costs money, and the critical mass that would break even is not anywhere near to see.
How could you justify spending the money to add IPv6 functionality where you cannot project any ROI for 10 years ?
Implementing IPv6 is a risk-taking business. Risk is acceptable if there is a reward, and in many situations there is none.
Vendors are like everyone else : they need to make a buck.

> I am persuaded at this point that the most likely outcome of this policy
> is a gaming the system with vacuous "ceremonies" as others have suggested.

I have 3 issues with this : 

1. I should not have to "game" the system.
2. It wastes my time.
3. It skews the deployment data. There is going to be a crackpot to make a graph about how many orgs have embraced IPv6, or how many prefixes have been registered, or something like that. This proposal is dishonest.

> Or is it strictly a philosophical ambition to move to a unified protocol version with no reliance on NAT?

The reliance on NAT is not going anywhere.
Look at slide 57. Tell me it's better than CGNAT.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list