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

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

The Federal Government has has an IPv6 requirement on networks and 
purchases since 2008.  We have federal contracts, and it is still 
required.

As for private networks, it is rather foolish to buy any networking gear 
for over the last 10 years that does not support IPv6, as at least you 
should be ready by now, considering the average lifetime of equipment.

I just wish everyone that can, would add IPv6.  This would increase the 
number of places that an IPv6 connection will reach.

I also think that soon the idea of a public IPv4 address on your router 
will become an extra cost option, with the average person ending up with a 
CGnat ipv4 connection by default.  In this enviroment, a native IPv6 
connection beats the CGnat of IPv4 on speed.

While IPv6 is not perfect, it does work well, and clearly solves the 
address shortage problem.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.



On Mon, 13 Sep 2021, Owen DeLong wrote:

>
>
>> On Sep 13, 2021, at 11:03 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
>>> This ignores some of the real consumer-afflicting issues in the situation and the key point I was trying to make…
>>>
>>> 1. The ATSC mandate was one of the most successful in USG History.
>>>
>> The most salient difference is that the USG own the airwaves and regulates them. I dont think we quite want the same for the internet.
>>
>> That is the only lesson to be learned.
>>
>> Joe
>
> I am convinced that they regulate them.
>
> I am not convinced that they own them.
>
> However, I can see several situations where USG could exert legitimate pressure. I’m not sure that they should, necessarily, but I am
> not completely convinced that they should not, either. Note that nothing I propose below represents an area where the USG does
> not already regulate the matter in question to some extent or other.
>
> 	+	Do not buy network products from vendors that do not offer fully IPv6 enabled services.
> 	+	Do not buy from suppliers whose web sites are not reachable from an IPv6-only network after <date>
> 	+	Require providers to offer IPv6 services to call their service offering “Internet”.
> 	+	Require providers to offer IPv6 services at X Mbps to call their service offering “broadband internet”.
> 	+	Require providers to offer IPv6 services in order to receive any USF or other subsidies.
>
> These would be pretty low hanging fruit and would be difficult to call “overreach” as each of them is already much more intrusively
> regulated for other purposes by USG.
>
> Owen
>
>