[arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 12, 2021, at 15:37 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 12, 2021, at 14:02 , Michel Py <michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Owen DeLong wrote :
>>>> I know you don’t like that answer because for some reason, you prefer the ongoing pain of IPv4 vs. the small short-term pain of deploying IPv6, but there it is.
>>> What you call short-term is 20 years and counting. I eliminated IPX in one year, and it was the #1 protocol at the time. For the last 20 years, I have heard that IPv6 would become the dominant protocol in 2 years. For the last TWENTY years.
>> You’re mischaracterizing my statement a bit here.
>> 
>> With regards to pain, anyone forced to maintain IPv4 on a network with any sort of ongoing growth is suffering an ever increasing amount of pain and costs.
>> 
>> OTOH, once you have deployed IPv6 on a similar network, IPv6 is considerably less painful and life would be much better if you could turn off IPv4 at that point. IPv4 is the major source of ongoing pain.
> 
> And its the protocol you actually need to use.

Less and less every day, actually. I can count on one hand the number of things I still need IPv4 for these days:

	Amazon.com (sadly no viable alternatives)
	Payment Processors (though some show signs of this changing in the next year or two, so some hope here)
	Amplifiers (LAN only)
	My HMO (though they appear to be working on this, I should check in with Sylvia to see if there’s hope on the horizon)
	Likely a small handful of other things I don’t regularly think about.
	A few Chamberlain MyQ controlled things in my house.
	Philips Hue (though I’m working on an IPv6 Zigbee bridge that will support LightLink generically).

Sunrun might get upset if I turned off IPv4, but I’d regard that as their problem, not mine.

>>>> I use more. Are you going to claim that my choice not to NAT is somehow invalid?
>>> In an IPv4 world, yes. It's irresponsible.
>> That’s sort of like saying that people who bought single-family houses in urban areas should be forced into high density housing because in an urban area, it’s irresponsible to have a single-family house with a yard.
>> 
>> I don’t buy the argument in either case.
> 
> I am with you on this. Yes. its theoretically "irresponsible" but that is no justification to be high handed.

I have trouble with the idea that someone continuing to do what they do with their land is somehow irresponsible because a bunch of other people who came later feel somehow entitled.

>>>> You’ve admitted that there are valid reasons for at least 6 addresses per household.
>>> No. This setup is a hodge-podge that has no reason to be. In all of my branches all across the USA, I use only one IP and the eight or sixteen that come automatically are wasted. Intentionally.
>> Even if you consider one address per site, the math still works out that IPv4 comes up short when you combine the number of households with the number of businesses and then add in infrastructure, servers, etc.
> 
> The fraction of households that actually care enough about guip + larger fraction of businesses/services might actually still work out mathwise.

Only if you assume that everyone will accept second class citizenry in perpetuity and that there isn’t a need/desire for applications that would be enabled by restoring the end-to-end model.

I do not accept either of these assumptions and I resent those standing in the way of moving forward with these capabilities. Probably at least as much as you resent those allegedly standing in the way of 240/4 being used as RFC-1918 space.

> Infrastructure does not count, that it consumes guip is a convenience in more cases than not.

We can agree to disagree on this one. Amusingly, that statement is more true of IPv6 than of IPv4.

> Servers can be consolidated, again convenience.

We can agree to disagree on this one, too… Not every server is a Virtual Web host. Some things still like unique port numbers.

Email comes to mind.

>>>> ISDN was quite widely deployed and, in fact, is still in widespread use, just not for data for the most part.
>>> Oh ? where ? I did have a few PRIs at $job[-1], but there were local to my closet; the back end was SIP.
>> There are a LOT of PBXs that interconnect with their ILEC or other Telco via ISDN PRI. VOIP has not completely supplanted it just yet.
> 
> I believe the original point was referencing the fact that ISDN was intended to replace POTS, nationally. Instead it found a solid niche role among providers and enterprises for a time, currently eroding. I do not think you prefer that narrative for IPv6.

No, that narrative is much better suited for IPv4, as it has replaced NCP for the last 30+ years, and is on a relatively similar timeline to ISDN, actually.

>>> For a variety of reasons, it was easier to communicate with legacy equipment with PRI trunks, but they came out of an Asterisk server; was a lot cheaper to buy a few Quad-PRI PCI express cards than upgrading a legacy system.
>> In many cases, that’s still true, but instead of bothering with the Asterisk server, they are simply doing PRI with the Telco.
>> 
> Anyone doing that feel free to contact somebody willing to do that with you over sip, you will get redundancy and flexibility and its almost always a whole lot cheaper.

In my experience, this varies greatly depending on the Telco in question.

Owen