Thanks Owen for the great inputs. 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.
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. Fernando On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, 12:20 Owen DeLong, <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 27, 2019, at 22:07 , Fernando Frediani <fhfredi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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. > 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". > > 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. > > In fairness, this is not entirely true. The following challenges still > remain in some situations: > > + Providers with a heavy reliance on MPLS for traffic engineering have no > good path to managing IPv6 traffic engineering with their existing tools. > + There are still a significant number of providers that are not offering > IPv6 to their customers > - There are workarounds for this, but they come with significant > tradeoffs and in some cases real costs. > + Human Factors > - Perception that NAT==Security > - Limited familiarly with IPv6 > - Fear of the unknown > - Other priorities > - Perceived lack of a business case > - Engineers not well able to articulate the business case to the C-Suite > - Entrenched software base that is not yet ported, especially custom > internal applications and large legacy systems > > 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. > > 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. > 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. > > > 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. > > 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). > > Owen > > >
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
