[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 22:37, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> that. You must know that? Why does the date bother you?

Because it is in the past.

> That would revert us to back to pre-market policy. Who would want that and why?

Those that would like all allocations to be treated the same.

> We can only heal everyone by moving to IPv6. There is no cure in IPv4 land.

Just stop telling me how to heal. I like your new diet, I practice it
myself, but for the moment it is far from allowing me to live. In order
to survive I need extras that can only be found in limited quantities.
And you want to explain me how you're doing me a favor by increasing the
price, while people having stocks (and putting on me pressure that makes
the new diet irrelevant) can happily live ever after ... ?

With 2015-05 I tried to fix the issue, but number of people in the
community were against, the reason being mainly "make v4 last as long as
possible". For me that reason makes it clear that IPv4 address space is
meant to be the new equivalent of gold. Today, IPv6 is only a
distraction, in the next years a "possible but unlikely option" and *AN*
alternative in the future. But it will not become *THE* solution before
IPv4 availability goes to ZERO (0.000000, not 0.1 or 0.01 or even
0.001).

Trying to explain me that on 14 Sept 2022 a new start-up (especially a
content-related one) will legitimately need a /22 worth of
provider-agnostic IPv4 space *ALONE* (i.e. IPv6 still as optional as
today), for me it seems exaggerate. Same thing on 14 Sept 2027
(regardless of the allocation size) is totally unacceptable. Even today
I find it hard to hear "save v4 for future entrants"  with no incentive
(or even obligation) to deploy v6.

As for the market, today, mid-2016, the market doesn't have any explicit
need for IPv6. On the contrary, the market *DOES* require IPv4
explicitly : no v4 = no business (mostly because "static public IPv4
address required"). Best case, very optimistic scenario, "not enough
business". At least in my area and most of my market. I would be
interested to hear the situation in other areas/markets : do a customer
that is only give IPv6 stay with you for more than 1 year by using the
service and never calling the support ? I have examples with IPv4-only
(they ignore v6, some voluntarily, some not) customers. I also have
customers that explicitly request IPv6 to be disabled (most likely
because they don't know how to dot it themselves). IPv6 is only
acceptable as long as it comes together with IPv4. But that doesn't
meant that it will be used.

So yes, I oppose this policy as I oppose by principle anything that:
 - changes the rules selectively, especially based on age (my most
 important no-go for 2016-03)
 - does it retroactively
 - tries to unbalance even more an already unbalanced market

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs