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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 9/13/2021 10:38 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 13, 2021, at 09:36 , Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/12/2021 3:37 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Bull Pucky.  Apples to Oranges comparison.  I own a home in an urban area that has a yard.  The city is staffed with people like you who are
>> desperate to have people like me to subdivide our 50x100 lot into 2 25x200 lots and build skinny houses.
>
> I’d be really curious how you do that… I haven’t yet found a way to transform a 5,000 square foot lot into a 10,000 square foot lot through
> subdivision. Can you please explain the process?

LOL.  I meant 25x100.  But if anyone knows how to get 25x200 please let 
me know!!! :-)

>
> Right, but the question is whether or not it is irresponsible for me, as a user who has sufficient IPv4
> holdings to use my IPv4 holdings to number individual hosts on my network rather than NAT it all
> behind one address.

It's neither IMHO.  What would be irresponsible is if you were offering 
services on the Internet via IPv4 and NOT via IPv6.

I understand the argument that people holding "extra" IPv4 should give 
it up.  But it's more important for people to dual stack.  Particularly 
people offering content via webservers, etc.

What is really going on here Owen is the "keep IPv4 and dump IPv6" 
proponents have successfully reframed the argument into whether or not 
it's irresponsible to "hang on to unused IPv4"   And I am afraid you 
have fallen into that trap.  If they can get you down that rabbithole 
and making that argument then they win.

In the US the anti-abortion people are expert at this trick.  And what 
they do is just as invalid as your question on whether or not it is
irresponsible for you to use NAT va IPv4.

You got "punked" in the debate I'm afraid.

If people spent a tenth of the effort deploying IPv6 as they do fighting
over whether or not so and so should give up some IPv4 or whether or not
IPv4 should be leased or not leased, then nobody would be using IPv4 at 
all by now and the IPv4 debate would be a moot issue.


Ted