<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="auto">Those are nice words, but I don't see how <span class="gmail-il">ARIN</span> can measure ”a real commitment that organization is doing its part,” at least for most organizations. It is possible for some organizations, especially those that have subjected themselves to public measurement, but I don't think it is fair, or good policy, to effectively required public measurement of your IPv6 progress to entitle you to receive additional IPv4 resources.</div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Note: the University of Minnesota participates in the World IPv6 Launch Measurements, currently ranked 125th with an almost 62% deployment, along with around 350 other entities. As a public institution, it is part of our mission to participate in these kinds of activities, but even we have to pick and choose what we participate in, no one can participate in all such activities.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">However even those measurements don't tell the whole story, most of our web content is not IPv6 enabled at this time. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say the IT people at the University don't own the web content, I think this is a common story. FYI, our content management provider is moving to a new CDN later this fall, coincidentally the new CDN is IPv6 enabled, this is happening because of market forces, not by any planning or ability to influence planning by anyone in our organization that even knows what IPv6 is.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Believe me, I’d like it to be as simple as tying the receiving of IPv4 to your IPv6 deployment, but there is no simple or accurate way to measure IPv6 deployment generally, let alone an organization’s commitment to such. Even if there was, I'm not convinced such a policy would be effective in increasing IPv6 deployment, and even if it would be effective, I'm further not convinced such a policy is fair.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks.</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:12 AM Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Thanks Owen for the great inputs.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I would say that probably nobody would expect a 100% deployment in minimal details and in every device but rather a prove that it has been deployed, is being routed and used. In other words a real commitment that organization is doing its part.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think also in a eventual proposal there could be well defined exceptions at the discretion of ARIN's staff when properly justified the unavoidable limitations.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Fernando</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, 12:20 Owen DeLong, <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Aug 27, 2019, at 22:07 , Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-interchange-newline"><div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>I may be wrong but it looks like that for some people at some
point the only thing that matters is the sensation someone may be
trying to tell them how to do things than if IPv6 should be
deployed or not.<br>
Right, how long more will we be in this back and forth of "I know
I have to deploy IPv6 but I will do on my own time" ? How long
more we will hear things like "there is no other way out of
transfer market" and "it is natural thing to buy more IPv4 to be
in business" and then right after "Don't tell me I have to deploy
IPv6".</p><p>There have been times in the past when deploying IPv6 had
challenges, concerns or limitations, but now a days let's be
honest, there are probably none. </p></div></div></blockquote>In fairness, this is not entirely true. The following challenges still remain in some situations:</div><div><br></div><div>+<span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Providers with a heavy reliance on MPLS for traffic engineering have no good path to managing IPv6 traffic engineering with their existing tools.</div><div>+<span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>There are still a significant number of providers that are not offering IPv6 to their customers</div><div><span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>-<span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>There are workarounds for this, but they come with significant tradeoffs and in some cases real costs.</div><div>+<span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Human Factors</div><div><span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>-<span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Perception that NAT==Security</div><div><span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>-<span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Limited familiarly with IPv6</div><div><span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>-<span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Fear of the unknown</div><div><span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>-<span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Other priorities</div><div><span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>-<span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Perceived lack of a business case</div><div><span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>-<span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Engineers not well able to articulate the business case to the C-Suite</div><div><span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>-<span class="gmail-m_-525546881269069666m_2526137503852428648Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Entrenched software base that is not yet ported, especially custom internal applications and large legacy systems</div><div><br></div><div>I’m not saying that these issues are insurmountable, and I’m not saying we don’t need to deploy IPv6. Indeed, I’ve been beating the IPv6 drum pretty hard for many years now. However, statements like “there are probably no remaining challenges” do not reflect reality and reduce the credibility of your other statements in this regard.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>We are in 2019, nearly 2020 and
it seems there are still a significant amount of people that
wishes to keep supporting the transfer market rather than do the
obvious that we all know will make the Internet ecosystem to keep
evolving, perhaps with less conflicts.<br>
And what Albert is proposing to discuss is fair and very much
reasonable, nothing out of order: simply the organization to show
it is doing its job (or is there anyone the believes IPv6 is still
just accessory and can wait another 20 years ?) in order that is
can use the transfer mechanism of IPv4. He didn't suggest anything
different than that.<br></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>There’s lots of monetary interest in the transfer market, and where there’s a perception of money to be made, voices and advocacy will follow. This is an unfortunate side-effect of capitalism and market economies.</div><div><br></div><div>I never said Albert was out of line, but I do not think Albert’s proposal will yield the desired results, nor do I think it is good registry policy. (See my previous comments on the proposal).</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div><br></div></blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">===============================================<br>David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>Office of Information Technology<br>University of Minnesota <br>2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br>Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br>=============================================== </div>