[arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-19 Require IPv6 before receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

This is NOT about inflating IPv6 adoption numbers, but trying to get 
people to move in the right direction, since without adoption of IPv6, the 
number of nodes on the internet will be fixed at a number that is not even 
equal to one per living person on planet earth.

I am not a bit worried about my employment for publically stating that I 
think we need to move toward IPv6. In actual fact, I am often hired for 
that specific skill.  Your suggestion seems similar to suggesting a doctor 
who promotes healthy eating and the use of a daily multivitamin should be 
fired by their employing hospital system, because they do not want healthy 
people, since sick people cause so much more profit for the hospital 
system. Here, you are suggesting it is career suicide to suggest that the 
future of the Internet is IPv6. I do not think that is true.

I speak from a US prospective. The largest ISP in the US is Comcast, who 
has gone all in on IPv6 without any push from this policy, since even if 
they possessed ALL the IPv4 addresses, they would not be enough to number 
all the devices in their network.  Other major Internet players including 
all of the top 4 Cable and top 4 phone ISP's except for Verizon and 
Fronter FIOS, who still has made no IPv6 progress on their FIOS network at 
all are including IPv6 by default. Verizon is big on IPv6 elseware 
including their mobile network, and like the top 4 mobile carriers, employ 
IPv6 in their newest handsets.

Google, Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Amazon and AWS and many more of 
the top internet sites in terms of traffic are using this protocol.  It is 
false that IPv6 is not growing. Those that hold out hope that something 
like IPv8 will come rescue them from IPv6 adoption is not happening. IPv6 
is here now and the only path to expand the Internet beyond the size of 
IPv4.  If it were possible to have a expansion of addresses in IPv4, it 
would have been done. I also note that IPv6 has the same issue, as there 
was no expansion plans placed into it either.

As an example of the usefulness of IPv6, a major wireless internet 
provider refused to renew its contract with my state government to provide 
static public IPv4 addresses on their mobile network to agencies of the 
state.  They told everyone that wanted addresses that are both static and 
public that the only choice going forward after the contract end is IPv6, 
because they intended to repurpose all the static addresses in their 
mobile network to their CGnat platform because they did not want to have 
to buy more.  My challenge was to tie together a 2000+ node public transit 
network with IPv6 since the 2000+ static IPv4 addresses were going away. 
In support of this, I first advanced an ARIN policy to change the 
requirement for registration for IPv6 from /64 to /47, a policy change 
that allowed us to get around a hard headed requirement of this mobile 
provider that I provide a unique street address for each public transit 
bus as part of the required ARIN /64 registration.  After that was taken 
care of, it was actually quite simple to move traffic to IPv6 addresses. 
There is also a public wifi spot on each bus, and to date more than 1/2 of 
that traffic also moves via IPv6. IPv4 traffic now passes thru the new 
CGnat, and is much slower then IPv6 because of that overhead.

IPv6 is NOT retreating from use. To me, it looks like the ones that are 
against this policy are mostly either IPv4 brokers or corporate networks 
that do not offer public services, are not growing fast and see no need to 
spend even one dime on IPv6 deployment.  Of course from the individual 
business point of view this is true.  However, the Internet depends on 
collective rules regarding traffic, and it is clear that IPv6 needs to be 
part of this, so that everyone can obtain and use a Internet network that 
is not constrained by the 4.3G limit of IPv4.

One of the main points of usefulness of this policy is it will make IPv6 a 
requirement of a growing network, rather than an unneeded protocol.  Most 
Corporate decisions are clearly based on money.  If the CxO is told by IT 
staff that IPv6 is no longer optional for those that need to grow their 
IPv4 holdings because of a policy change at ARIN, it will move IPv6 from 
the optional to the required column. Keep in mind that those large 
internet businesses I cited above made the decision to go to IPv6 based on 
their own corporate merits and NOT ARIN policy.  This policy change is 
more about getting the remaining holdouts that are growing their IPv4 
holdings to make the same change.

Those in the IPv4 broker business clearly see IPv6 growth as a threat to 
their business, and I agree that universal adoption of IPv6 will ruin 
their business model.  Their money comes from the operators that are 
paying 10-20 dollars per address, instead of using that money to expand 
using IPv6.

I know that a lot of people here have said they will never adopt IPv6, and 
have no need.  Therefore they do not want ARIN policy to "make" them do 
this.  I also note for the record that I did not advance a policy to 
require healthy eating and the use of multivitamins.  However, IPv6 IS 
something that is needed for any future growth of the Internet, since IPv4 
cannot grow, and eventually those unused blocks being traded will come to 
an end and slow IPv4 growth.  I also note that those corporate networks 
that do not need additional IPv4 addresses will still not be required by 
this policy to have anything to do with IPv6.  This policy is ONLY 
directed to those that are wanting to grow their IPv4 network. It is also 
not directed to the waiting list, as I see that slowing to a near stop.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.



On Mon, 20 Jan 2020, Michel Py wrote:

> How many times do we need to say no no no no ?
>
> I have a stern warning : as it is obvious that IPv6 is leveling off, 
> people who are supporting the 100% IPv6 dream have to worry about their 
> next employment, should their current one changes. Never before in 
> history, a protocol has failed for 20 years to deploy and become 
> predominant. Needless to say, this warning applies to ARIN leadership as 
> well.
>
> IPv6 : I.S.D.N. I still don’t need.
>
> Some people archive this mailing list. This effort is about artificially 
> inflating IPv6 adoption numbers.
>
> I understand that the ultimate political skill is the ability to turn 
> their coat, but don't wait until it's too late. Whoever is favoring IPv6 
> as the standard Internet protocol in 2020 is doing it on the record, at 
> the risk of their very employment.
>
> I hope I have been clear enough.
>
> Michel.
>
> _______________________________________________ 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.
>