Subject: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:13:39 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Sam Weiler <[email-masked]>

    > It is remarkably easy to get involved with the ARIN public policy
    > procecss and submit a proposal 

Yes, and they listen so well! Just like they listened to the people telling
them that PI "addresses" were a bad idea; and how can we forget that recent
todo about /48's vs. /56's?

Now, I have to go; a command and control experience with some rising water
awaits.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Jeff McAdams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:55:36 -0400

> todo about /48's vs. /56's?

Huh...and here I was thinking, "Maybe ARIN actually does listen to
people.  Apparently they paid attention to those of us saying that PI
space was absolutely critical for any real level of adoption of IPv6."

It seems that nanog is focused (somewhat understandably) on the ideas of
the ISP world.

In the enterprise world, where I live now, IPv6 is just flat out a
non-starter without PI space.  Its just not even a discussion that's
even useful to have, because the answer to IPv6 without PI is just "No."

The sooner ISPs quit trying to fight this fight, and just start
implementing this stuff widely, the better off everyone will be.

To borrow from Nike, "Just Do It."  OK, maybe not all the tools are
fully mature for IPv6, maybe some network gear handles it in main CPU
rather than hardware.  So what?!  Its possible to deploy IPv6 today.
The technology is "good enough."  Maybe its not ideal, but its good
enough to make it possible.

I'm just sick of the bickering and idiocy about IPv6 not being at
complete feature parity with IPv4.  Well, no duh!  It doesn't need to be
right out of the gate.  IPv6 doesn't need to be as scaleable as IPv4
right away.  It will take time for traffic levels to ramp up, so all of
the scalability tricks that we're all using for IPv4 aren't needed right
away in IPv6 land.

If we want these capabilities to exist, we all need to pressure vendors
to bring it about.  Saying "I want to do IPv6, at some point, if it
would be convenient for you." just doesn't hack it.  Saying, as I have
to a vendor in just these words, "We're implementing IPv6 *now*, and
your gear is standing in our way.  You're behind the curve and you need
to catch up, or we quit buying it." brings a lot more pressure to bear.

In short, just drop the arguing over it and start deploying.  I don't
care how, just do it.  But if you tell me I can't use PI space, I'm
gonna laugh in your face and tell you you're dreaming.
-- 
Jeff McAdams
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                                       -- Benjamin Franklin

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:56:45 +0000

> even useful to have, because the answer to IPv6 without PI is just "No."

some day when i'm ready to write my autobiography i shall search the archives
for all the times i said that in the mid-90's.  as near as i can tell, folks
thought i was out of touch, or insane, or all three.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:04:46 +0200

> even useful to have, because the answer to IPv6 without PI is just "No."

I doubt your statement will hold true when there is more v4 address 
space to be had for free.  Providing PI to enterprises who move now is a 
nice bonus, not not necessary in the long run.

Eliot

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:46:34 -0400

> space was absolutely critical for any real level of adoption of IPv6."

   I was told by many people in the past year that this was the case.
This is why I even bothered to try.  The response surprised me.

> to catch up, or we quit buying it." brings a lot more pressure to bear.

   What he said.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:53:10 +0200

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Thus spake "Eliot Lear" <[email-masked]>
>> Providing PI to enterprises who move now is a nice bonus, not
>> not necessary in the long run.
>
> That comment shows how completely out of touch you are with the 
> enterprise operational world.

Or it perhaps shows how completely out of touch you are from the 
economics that are about to hit enterprises.

Eliot

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:12:40 -0500

> not necessary in the long run.

That comment shows how completely out of touch you are with the enterprise 
operational world.  Unfortunately, that is rather common with the 
ivory-tower vendor folks commenting in this thread.  Even the ISPs in the 
operational community could _understand_ why PI is necessary, however much 
they dislike and/or fear it.

I should also note that you're commenting from an enterprise that 
side-stepped the RIR rules somehow and got PI space by pretending to be an 
LIR.  The world must look a little different when the rules you're a 
proponent of magically don't apply to _you_.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:56:59 +0200

[elaborating]

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> enterprise operational world.  Unfortunately, that is rather common 
> with the ivory-tower vendor folks commenting in this thread.  Even the 
> ISPs in the operational community could _understand_ why PI is 
> necessary, however much they dislike and/or fear it.
>
> side-stepped the RIR rules somehow and got PI space by pretending to 
> be an LIR.  The world must look a little different when the rules 
> you're a proponent of magically don't apply to _you_.
>

You've misunderstood my comment, and you don't know my history.  I would 
like for enterprises to be able to have PI addresses.  What I am saying 
is that the economics of IPv4 about to radically shift such that the 
cost of staying on IPv4 is going to inflate over time.  As that happens 
the costs of moving to IPv6 begin to look attractive.  It's like 
drilling for oil in America, to mangle an analogy of a colleague.  
Nobody needs to do it when the cost of oil is $18 a barrel, but the 
matter is considerably different at $80.

Eliot