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

[Joe Maimon]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> Ironically, a timely move to dual stack would have meant that the IPv4 
> addresses needed for it were available, which would have allowed a 
> smooth transition to v6 with new sites being deployed v6-only and old 
> sites deprecating v4 at their leisure. Foot-dragging by those who saw 
> no incentive to be community minded indeed took us beyond the date 
> where this was feasible and transition mechanism hacks are the 
> inevitable and inferior result of that foot dragging. 

Exactly. A timely migration using dual stack to avoid scarcity depended 
on something that was always extremely unlikely to occur, and look: it 
did not. This is the exact nature of the failure that is the IPv6 
deployment.


>> However, the longer this drags on the greater the odds that things we dont want will happen and irrevocably alter the landscape in ways we would not have wanted.
> Or eventually, people will see something they want that is enabled by restoring the end-to-end model and that will drive demand for IPv6 and things we do want will happen.

Keep on hoping. Just so happens that all trends are currently in the 
opposite direction.

>
>> Worse for your analogy, electric car success can be wholly attributed to both new technology and manufacturers finally making cars that people actually wanted, and not just for the smug value.
> OK, so what new technology can be deployed that will drive adoption of a new addressing scheme that doesn’t suffer from the shortages built in to IPv4?

All I would like is for any innovators in the space to stop being 
hampered by the same ideologues who have brought us to this sorry state 
of affairs.

Mechanisms that allow IPv6 only nodes to access the entirety|majority of 
the actual internet would be highly advantageous at this point. The 
reverse would be spectacular.

>
>> If I havent gotten the point across that this is what IPv6 actually needs to be successful any time soon, there is little reason for continuing this conversation.
> You’ve done a great job of pointing out everything you think is wrong… You’ve done nothing to offer any positive solutions to any of the problems raised for either protocol.

And look how difficult it has been. You want I should do everything??

Before solutions can be offered that will actually be accepted, the 
ideology based opposition must be brought around and convinced and 
thereby silenced. We know this because we have seen this movie before.

Many solutions and proposals have been offered by many people much more 
qualified than myself to do so, and were brought to the rocks due to 
dual stack and anti-nat religion.

>
>> The goal should not be eventual IPv6 adoption by attrition. The goal should be meaningful solutions to actual issues, now and real soon. Hopefully sustainable ones, but the here and now means something to people living in it.
> IPv6 adoption whether by attrition or other means is a solution to the actual issue of address shortage. Ideally, getting others to recognize this and move forward will provide a sustainable solution sooner rather than later, but the lengths people will go to in order to avoid change are impressive.
>
> Owen
>
Its a solution that doesnt solve anything anytime soon, which means more 
ongoing failure, issues and collateral damage.

The lengths people will go to ignore change thats not very relevant to 
them are not impressive, just predictable.
Joe