[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers
hostmaster at uneedus.com
hostmaster at uneedus.com
Mon Nov 11 19:18:49 EST 2019
Well, we can step the standard up to 100% dual stack compliance, but I
doubt we can get consensus on that now. In a few years and a new draft,
maybe we can do it then.
I see it as baby steps to the goal of 100% IPv6.
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> If you want to make meaningful progress, you’re talking about “deploying enough IPv6 to not need another IPv4 block”: that requires either building something to be IPv6-only, or deploying enough IPv6 to reduce the size of the required NAT pool for your remaining IPv4 traffic. Both of those are hard and expensive on an enterprise network, so most enterprises have opted to “buy” so far.
> Sure, meeting the “compliance” bar in this draft policy is easy. But that’s because it accomplishes approximately nothing.
>> On Nov 11, 2019, at 4:02 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>>> On 12 Nov 2019, at 10:12, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think you underestimate the complexity of enterprise networking, and the relative lack of skill of the folks managing most enterprise networks, largely due to the fact that they can't enforce at-scale standardization as consumer networks do (so they can't just hire a small number of software architects to manage an entire network via automation).
>> I know one can turn on IPv6 along side IPv4 and gradually move stuff across to supporting
>> both IPv4 and IPv6. I know that HTTP, SMTP and DNS servers have supported IPv6 for over
>> 2 decades. DHCP servers have supported IPv6 nearly as long. I know firewalls have supported
>> IPv6 for over 2 decades now. I know Windows has supported IPv6 since Windows XP. I know Apple,
>> Oracle (Sun), VMS, Linux, … have supported IPv6 as long if not longer. I know turning on IPv6
>> doesn’t mean turning off IPv4. Most CDN’s support IPv6 these days as well and you don’t have
>> to be running IPv6 in house to project a IPv6 presence on the net. Routers have supported IPv6
>> for decades as well though not at the $50 mark until recently.
>> Turning on IPv6 isn’t hard even if most it the plant isn’t using it. The front office can
>> definitely use it just like homes use it today. Getting to the state where you are ready
>> to go IPv6-only is hard as it requires every piece of equipment to support IPv6, but don’t
>> confuse the two.
>>> When it comes down to making a decision about whether to implement IPv6, the decision is usually "build vs. buy" - "build" a new network, new server infrastructure, etc., vs. "buy" more IPv4 addresses. On residential networks, they can "build" at a sufficient scale to be cheaper than "buying". On enterprise networks, the "buy" option is usually cheaper (and far less risky to the revenue-generating portions of the business).
>> In many cases it is just enable.
>>> There are ways to help change that cost/benefit tradeoff, but they involve solving hard problems of both the technical and organizational variety. This policy proposal does nothing to address them.
>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:36 PM Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>>> Actually the arrogance of enterprises in not turning on IPv6 is astounding.
>>> Their customers are being forced to share IP addresses not only between their
>>> own machines but between machines from different customers because they can’t
>>> take the simple step of turning on IPv6 on their servers. No one else can
>>> do that but them.
>>> The world ran out if IPv4 address in 1995. Stop gaps have kept IPv4 going since
>>> then and they are getting worse. 20 years to plan to turn on IPv6 and they still
>>> say they need more time. Thats mega arrogance for you.
>>>>> On 8 Nov 2019, at 12:08, Michel Py <michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>>>> Hi Jordi,
>>>>> I'm not sure if this is a love or a war declaration ... below ...
>>>> This is war, make no mistake.
>>>>> In fact, we should aim, as a community (RIRs, IETF, ICANN), to do as much as we can to start sunseting IPv4 now.
>>>> This is why we are at war. In 20 years, you have not yet captured 10% of the enterprise market and you are talking about sunset ?
>>>> Your arrogance is mind-boggling. You are fighting for the survival of IPv6. You had your shot at it. For 20 years. Now want to kill my ecosystem, I will thrown anything I have at yours. No matter how dirty it is. No matter how much people will hate me. Not being nice anymore.
>>>> 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:
>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
>>> 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:
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML