<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>One thing I get surprised often is the amount effort some people
prefer to put in repealing IPv6 than to deploy it.</p>
<p>Although I keep thinking that this proposal doesn't force anyone
automatically to do something, I fully agree with what was said by
Owen that "Business has a responsibility to the community(ies) in
which it operates and It has an obligation to function as a
supportive member of the community providing a general benefit to
the community and not act as a parasite consuming the community in
question."</p>
<p>Also worth quoting John's comments that "ARIN's enforces your
ability to make productive use of any address space is predicated
upon cooperation with the same community, you might find it
difficult to argue that you wish the benefits of cooperation minus
whatever obligations that community collectively establishes."</p>
<p>Therefore I don't believe the question about deploying IPv6 or
not is merely a private question of any business for them to
decide whenever they like without consequences. If still they
choose not to do then they should have no right to complain of any
obligations that community wishes to establish.</p>
<p>Best regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/11/2019 15:53,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:hostmaster@uneedus.com">hostmaster@uneedus.com</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:alpine.LRH.2.21.1911151314450.13061@bigone.uneedus.com">My
own entry into the IPv6 world began with a mandate issued by the
Executive Office of the President, which mandated that after a
magic date that all Federal networks, and therefore those of their
connected contractors have the ability to use IPv6.
<br>
<br>
Back in 2008, this was not as easy as it seems today. While most
of the basic services like DNS, SMTP and HTTP(s) servers had the
needed support in the most recent versions of the software, a
whole lot of stuff ran on earlier versions, which began the rush
to first get to the latest version so that we can turn IPv6 on to
meet the requirement. Even Windows XP, the most recent version at
that time of Microsoft Workstation Software had to have IPv6
added, as it was not enabled by default.
<br>
<br>
The people I worked with had put IPv6 in their RFPs for a few
years, so there was not as much hardware requiring a forklift
upgrade.
<br>
<br>
Today, almost anything more than a few years old has IPv6 enabled
by default. It is almost unwise to have it turned off, as it can
be used as a bypass around your security that you do not even
think of, because of sayings like "This is an IPv4 ONLY shop",
does not mean it is not present, even just locally on your lan
bypassing any restrictions that you may have.
<br>
<br>
At some point in the hopefully not too distant future, IPv6 will
become the main protocol on the Internet. In a lot of residences
it is already there with many major sites and large ISPs already
having it in place.
<br>
<br>
I see this draft policy as more of a nudge than a push in the
right direction. As pointed out earlier, one of the main uses of
this policy is to direct enterprises that wish to expand their
IPv4 inventory to adopt IPv6, at least in the limited extent of
those who interact with ARIN. Often this is an IS/IT group who
should be able to have IPv6 working in less than a day, or can
assign an intern to do it. Without such a requirement, as pointed
out by others, they will NEVER move.
<br>
<br>
Even with this policy, businesses that see no need to have IPv6
will still not have to face this policy unless they are obtaining
more IPv4 addresses.
<br>
<br>
Maybe we would have been better off had China had used up the
remaining address space much earlier than 2011 for its academic
networks, instead of going to IPv6. It would have forced these
issues years earlier.
<br>
<br>
It is the right thing for anyone part of the Internet to have
IPv6. CIDR, NAT, CGnat and whatever the next band aid is not going
to stretch IPv4 forever, and the complications of all these
devices, instead of an end to end connection is going to make
things harder for those that remain on IPv4 and all the extra
hardware to share the limited address space.
<br>
<br>
I think the time is right now to step forward and take a stand.
If you want to increse your percentage of your IPv4 holdings, you
need to be taking steps to also be ready for the future. That
future is IPv6. The policy is needed, and even the ARIN Board has
agreed that anyone with a need for numbers need to consider a move
to IPv6.
<br>
<br>
Albert Erdmann
<br>
Network Administrator
<br>
Paradise On Line Inc.
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Nov 14, 2019, at 20:14 , Michel Py
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us"><michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
Hi Owen,
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Owen DeLong wrote :
<br>
You seem to be assuming he’s in the internet business. He
made it pretty clear he’s talking from
<br>
the enterprise perspective where the internet isn’t the
revenue generating portion of the business,
<br>
but merely one of the many tools used by the business to
accomplish its revenue goals.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Indeed. The Internet is not the same thing as the Internet
business. There is no Internet without customers. Some
customers, such as the mobile market and the low-end
residential market can be forced into IPv6 because they
control nothing, but the enterprise market is not subject to
this. The enterprise adoption is a trickle, for reasons I have
explained publicly for years.
<br>
<br>
I'm sorry to say it bluntly, but the enterprise business is
about making money, not saving the world from an impending
doom that has not happened. I say it again : the problem of
IPv6 is that it is a solution to a problem that I do not have.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well… More accurately, it is a solution to a problem that you
feel it is better to live with than to solve. In short, you feel
that the barriers to implementing the cure are worse than living
with the symptoms of the disease.
<br>
<br>
Like or to, the need for NAT is a problem at least most
enterprises have. The fact that we have an entire generation of
engineers who have grown up not understanding the advantages of
end-to-end addressing (and don’t understand that stateful
inspection is a dependency for NAT, but can be implemented
without header mutilation) further complicates the recognition
of this problem, but you and I are both old enough to remember
an IPv4 internet with transparent addressing and the benefits
thereof.
<br>
<br>
Making matters worse, enterprises failing to deploy IPv6 enjoy
all of the advantages of the toxic polluter business model. The
costs of their refusal to move forward with the rest of the
internet are borne not by those making said refusal, but pushed
off on those sharing the internet with them who cannot complete
their transitions so long as there is a critical mass of
enterprises holding back progress.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">6 years ago, you thought that I was full
of it. We had a couple beers and you respectfully dismissed me
as an IPv4-only crackpot.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Oh, I still think you’re full of it to some extent. I don’t
think I dismissed you as a crackpot so much as we respectfully
agreed to disagree on several areas. I think little has changed
in the intervening years.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">With you, I do not seek revenge. You are
a formidable opponent and I respect you as such, but look back
in the past.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">From my perspective, there is nothing to
seek revenge for. I don’t see you as an opponent so much as
just someone with a differing opinion and operating on a
different time line.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
You feel that the self-serving advantages of delaying IPv6
deployment in your environment outweigh the broader public
interest advantages of proceeding to a point where IPv4
deprecation can begin. From a purely Ayn Rand/Gordon Gecko
oriented perspective, this is one available philosophy. It’s the
same mentality that will likely lead to human extinction through
global climate change… It’s the attitude that a business should
first and foremost maximize profit above any other concern.
<br>
<br>
It’s not a philosophy I embrace. Does a business have an
obligation to make a profit? Certainly. Does a business have
other duties besides maximizing profit? IMHO, yes. IMHO, a
business has a responsibility to the community(ies) in which it
operates. It has an obligation not to dump toxins into the local
rivers for those living downstream to deal with. It has an
obligation not to partially offload the payment of its employees
onto the taxpayers (a la a certain large well known chain of
stores). It has an obligation to function as a supportive member
of the community providing a general benefit to the community
and not act as a parasite consuming the community in question.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">6 years ago, when we shared a couple
beers on stage. I told you so. You did not listen. You were
wrong.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This will likely not surprise you, but I disagree. Even then, I
agreed that enterprises would likely be the last class of
laggards procrastinating the deployment of IPv6.
<br>
<br>
You say that this procrastination will likely continue
indefinitely. I feel that its days are numbered. Not as short as
I’d like to see, but I believe sooner than you expect.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">I disagree with Michel in a number of
areas. He and I have had frank discussions about this.
<br>
However, the points he raises are legitimate and we ignore
or dismiss them at our peril.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am glad you realize the peril part of it. 6 years ago, you
never thought I would be challenging you publicly on this. 6
years ago, you would not even have considered the possibility
that we would have this talk on this mailing list.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Actually, I am not at all surprised to see you still publicly
challenging me on this. I may not have predicted 6 years ago
that it would be you, but I fully expected some contingent of
IPv6 opponents would still exist in the enterprise realm and
that this discussion would still be ongoing.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">There is one more thing you should
realize about enterprise business : they like people who have
been steady in predicting the future.
<br>
I'm on track.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Meh… I’m fond of the saying that Prior Performance does NOT
guarantee Future Results.
<br>
<br>
The nice thing about the enterprise world is that no enterprise
is for ever and new ones come to life every day. There is a time
coming in the not too distant future where deploying a new
enterprise without IPv6 will seem as silly as deploying one
without IPv4 today.
<br>
<br>
At that point, then it’s just a matter of time before a
combination of ever increasing quantities of new enterprises
combined with attrition of old ones shifts the dynamic.
<br>
<br>
Things may move slower that many of us would like because of the
drag induced by people who share your mindset, but, nonetheless,
time is on the side of those of us who believe IPv6 will
eventually replace most of the current IPv4 utilization on the
internet.
<br>
<br>
Eventually (assuming we manage not to go extinct due to climate
change in the meantime), we will get there. The question is will
we ever realize the wisdom of ripping off the bandage, or, will
we continue to peel at the edges making a slightly lower level
of pain last for a much much longer time period. Personally, I
prefer a shorter period of slightly more significant disruption.
You obviously prefer to endure a prolonged period of pain (or
denial about pain in your case).
<br>
<br>
Owen
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
ARIN-PPML
<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
<br>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>