<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
There's absolutely no incentive to adopt IPv6. Everyone who needs IPv4
addresses essentially already has them, or has the money to acquire
someone who does if they need more. Is an IPv4 shortage really going to
stop Google, Microsoft, MCI or a large cable/xDSL service provider from
doing business?<br>
<br>
Giving out more IPv4 addresses just makes the IPv4 club bigger. The day
the last IPv4 address is used up, the existing IPv4 Internet doesn't
cease to exist, it'll be business as usual for the millions of users
and existing services. New users won't be shut out, they'll just be
second class citizens and by that time they may not realize it or even
care. <br>
<br>
NAT and as yet undreamed of "technologies" (kludges) designed to
preserve IPv4 will be in full swing to keep business as usual. RFC 3021
is one example, RFC 3489 an even better one. <br>
<br>
The only carrot is IPv4 addresses, and for a soft landing, you need to
make new IPv4 address space conditional on deploying IPv6. Even
deliberately "wasting" IPv4 space could be strategic in prompting
adoption of IPv6 - this could be in the form of waiving regulations and
paperwork for service providers who have working IPv6 networks. What is
the point of efficiently utilizing and managing IPv4 space if it simply
preserves the status quo? <br>
<br>
At some point, a large ISP or hosting provider should be able to
demonstrate that they broadly offer IPv6 DHCP to end users, and have
IPv6 accessible DNS and Web services before receiving new IPv4 space.
The bigger the existing IPv4 allocation, the more they have at stake it
terms of customers and one presumes, of budgets, implementation skills
and of an obligation of sorts to adopt IPv6. Conversely, someone with
a smaller or no existing IPv4 allocation has no impact at all if they
are an early adopter or have IPv6 as some precondition. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
David Conrad wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:FB2AA807-0739-492B-8D8C-76005A67A243@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
On May 11, 2007, at 9:06 AM, David Williamson wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 04:14:31AM -0400, Member Services wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Policy Proposal Name: IPv4 Soft Landing
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">This is, by far, the best idea I've seen along these lines.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Thanks.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The
staging would enforce a gradual buildup in requirements for further
IPv4 allocations, and provides a nice 'carrot and stick' approach to
forcing migration to IPv6.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Actually, it is more of a "growing stick" approach. The carrot is
handled elsewhere (e.g., waiver of IPv6 fees).
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Still, as much as I'd like to say I'm in favor of this proposal, I'm
hesitant to do so. On philophical grounds, I'm not sure that a soft
landing is strictly necessary. When we run out of IPv4 space, we run
out of space. Once we're out, does it matter if the landing was hard
or soft?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Yes, very, VERY much so.
The issue here is that Internet resource management does not operate
in a vacuum. There is constant pressure that most of you all don't
see for Internet resource management to be done by "professionals",
e.g., within national governments, the ITU, other international or
inter-governmental treaty organizations, etc. Failure to adequately
provide for at least some semblance of a reasonable transition from
Internet v1 to Internet v2 will be used as justification for a
fundamental restructuring of how Internet resource management is done.
To date, there have been no proposals that explicitly try to drive
increased deployment of IPv6 as a means to get over the chicken-and-
egg problem that has hindered the deployment of IPv6. "IPv4 Soft
Landing" is a first, undoubtedly flawed attempt to try to provide
real incentive for a transition.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As long as we can walk away, it's a good landing, and IPv6
provides an alternative network protocol. If your organization gets
screwed by the lack of IPv4 space, perhaps you should have been
looking
at IPv6 earlier.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
"Hi Grandma. You can't send e-mail? Well, of course not. You
didn't deploy IPv6 on your home router. What were you thinking?!
Sheesh. By the way, how's that new IP-monitored pacemaker working?
Err, hello? Hello?"
The vast majority of people using the Internet are not aware and if
they were would not care about whether they are using IPv4 or IPv6.
What the vast majority of people using the Internet care about is
reaching the content that is relevant to them. Saying "you should've
known better" when an infrastructure that national economies depend
on runs into trouble is the right approach if you want governments
involved.
IPv6 has created a second Internet. Unfortunately, all the services
and content are still on the old Internet. As long as there is no
incentive to start populating the Second Internet, people are not
going to migrate. Got to break the chicken-and-egg problem somehow...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The other reason I don't think I can quite endorse this proposal is
that it is entirely focused on ISPs and PA space. There's no mention
of how PI assignments might be handled, and I think that's a fatal
flaw. Perhaps a revision to account for that is in order. I'm told
that very few PI applicants come back for more space, so we'd have to
have a phased policy change that forces initial assignments to be much
more difficult to get. (And additional space, too, of course.)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This would go against current trends of liberalizing PI allocation
policies in all RIRs.
One reason I didn't include PI in this proposal is that it was my
impression that PI allocations make up a really, really tiny of all
address space that is allocated. I thought it best to go for the big
targets first. It may be that my assumptions were wrong... ARIN
staff might be able to provide input on this.
However, with that said, I'm happy to revise the proposal to include
a second section that deals with PI. Or, perhaps better, provide a
second proposal as adding a second section might trigger Michael
Dillon's "too complicated, too long" rants (:-)). (Those rants, by
the way, I generally agree with -- policies should be short and to
the point).
Rgds,
-drc
_______________________________________________
This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
(<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:PPML@arin.net">PPML@arin.net</a>).
Manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>