[address-policy-wg] Is the time for conservation over?

Haym

Andre Oppermann wrote:

> Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:

[...]
> It sounds a little bit contradictory to give away IPv4 addresses when
> you want people to migrate to IPv6, doesn't it? One of the supposed
> advantage of IPv6 is the as-much-as-you-can-eat approach to addresses
> (at least on your local end).
> 
> So I think your proposal is seriously flawed and contradicts your
> desired goal.

Don't look at it that way, see my first reply on the original mail from 
Michael.

I don't think the community would support any artificial shortage of 
(IPv4-)Address space as soon as they realize that there is "enough left 
for some decades".

The only way I see is to trick them by letting them waste IPv4 space 
until there really is none left :-)

I'm sorry if that sounds like a strange suggestion, but anyone got a 
better idea?

> 
>>In addition, I don't see any good reason to wait until LIRs come and ask
>>for IPv6 space. It's not scarce and the vast majority of IPv4 LIRs will
>>be deploying IPv6 sometime. So why don't we just give every single
>>one of them an IPv6 /32 today. Instead of creating barriers to the
>>adoption
> 
> 
> The problem with IPv6 is that it doesn't fix any problems. When IPv6
> was engineered it was done with (from today's perspective) wrong
> assumptions about the goals to achieve. Think about multihoming for
> IPv6 which is currently not possible (except for ISPs). And much more
> stuff on the operational side.

Well the multi-homing problem is rather a policy issue again by some of 
the network operators which don't want any /48's or some even nothing 
but /32's being allowed in the global routing table because they fear 
about the RAM usage and other scaling problems of of big routing tables.

It actually has nothing to do with IPv6 itself.
Those people just need to be kicked back into reality :-)

But the problem with IPv6 just is, that almost noone really needs it.


> 
>>of dual v4/v6 networks as we are today, we should be facilitating the
>>operation of dual v4/v6 networks. We need to create an environment
>>in which the end user can choose whether to use v4 or v6 rather than
>>constraining the end users with our v4-centric regulatory bureaucracy.
> 
> 
> The end-user has no choice because the end-user is not able to make
> any choice since he lacks sufficient knowlege to trade off the
> (dis-)advantages of his choice. The choice is usually made by the
> ISP and the applications the user wants to use. For them it's just
> the Internet and not an IPv4 or IPv6 based transport network.
> 

ACK.
But how to make ISPs will switch to IPv6 if there's enough IPv4 space left?
As i said, i don't think it's possible to get an agreement within the 
community that no IPv4 space will be issued anymore from some date on or so.
But i might be wrong.
I just got very pessimistic about IPv6 throughout the last years since
it's like talking against windmills (managers) if you don't have any 
busisinees-critical reasons for a change like towards IPv6.

-- 
========================================================================
= Sascha Lenz                  SLZ-RIPE          slz at baycix.de         =
= Network Operations                                                   =
= BayCIX GmbH, Landshut                  * PGP public Key on demand *  =
========================================================================