Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> On Nov 17, 2019, at 19:00 , Michel Py > wrote: > >> Owen DeLong wrote : >> Well… It could also connect you to the growing fraction of the internet and >> provide better performance, address transparency, and a few other benefits. > > I'm shocked you still are trying to play this with me. I

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, Michel Py wrote: Whether you like it or not, sooner or later IPv4 will go away, because the needs of the global population are greater than then needs of the few entrenched operators, no matter what minor fiefdom they have claimed. And of course you are right

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> Whether you like it or not, sooner or later IPv4 will go away, because the > needs of the global population are > greater than then needs of the few entrenched operators, no matter what minor > fiefdom they have claimed. And of course you are right because, after 20 consecutive years of

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Just wow, I run the show. Only to the limits of your borders, and no further. Done chest beating now? I am reasonably sure you are not impressing anyone, and only embarrassing yourself. YMMV. Any subsequent efforts to sunset IPv4 will be matched in efforts to disable IPv6. Whether

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> Owen DeLong wrote : > Well… It could also connect you to the growing fraction of the internet and > provide better performance, address transparency, and a few other benefits. I'm shocked you still are trying to play this with me. I was on the 6bone, I had IPv6 on a Cisco 2500. There are ZERO

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

One thing I get surprised often is the amount effort some people prefer to put in repealing IPv6 than to deploy it. 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> On Nov 15, 2019, at 09:41 , Adam Thompson wrote: > >> Reminds me of ISDN : I Still Don't Need. Look around you and tell me where >> you see ISDN. There is still plenty of POTS, and plenty of aDSL over POTS, >> not over ISDN. > > I beg your pardon??? > > BRIs are an utter market failure,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

“Have the ability”. Not “must use”. Networks without v6 work perfectly fine. Networks without v4 (or CGNAT et al) do not. The V6 reality is its still swiss cheese. And its going to be for a long time. I encourage everyone to use v6. I also prefer to let the marketplace sort out good and bad

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

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. Back in 2008, this was not as easy as it

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> On Nov 14, 2019, at 20:14 , Michel Py > wrote: > > Hi Owen, > >> Owen DeLong wrote : >> You seem to be assuming he’s in the internet business. He made it pretty >> clear he’s talking from >> the enterprise perspective where the internet isn’t the revenue generating >> portion of the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> Reminds me of ISDN : I Still Don't Need. Look around you and tell me where > you see ISDN. There is still plenty of POTS, and plenty of aDSL over POTS, > not over ISDN. I beg your pardon??? BRIs are an utter market failure, for (unusually) mostly technical reasons. The economic reasons were

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Hi Owen, > Owen DeLong wrote : > You seem to be assuming he’s in the internet business. He made it pretty > clear he’s talking from > the enterprise perspective where the internet isn’t the revenue generating > portion of the business, > but merely one of the many tools used by the business to

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers (fwd)

e: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers On 6 Nov 2019, at 3:23 PM, Michel Py wrote: There is no law that says I need IPv6, therefore the courts will hear my case for undue burden. Michel - As ARIN is not a governmental a

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> On Nov 12, 2019, at 05:22 , Fernando Frediani wrote: > > On 12/11/2019 01:38, Michel Py wrote: >> >> The enterprise market will not adopt IPv6. If it takes splitting ARIN in >> two, so be it. >> Frankly at this time I would welcome it. IPv6 is only trouble for me, and I >> do not think

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On 12/11/2019 01:38, Michel Py wrote: The enterprise market will not adopt IPv6. If it takes splitting ARIN in two, so be it. Frankly at this time I would welcome it. IPv6 is only trouble for me, and I do not think ARIN is representing my interests. You have a few options here: 1) Accept

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> Owen DeLong wrote : > I’m sure someone will go into the business of announcing IPv6 prefixes for, > say, $10/month. > For an organization transferring in an IPv4 block, another $120/year is > probably cheaper > than pushing the IT department to adequately deploy IPv6 to any meaningful >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> On Nov 11, 2019, at 19:26 , Fernando Frediani wrote: > > On 12/11/2019 00:06, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> This is not something new to be done as it is similar that the >>> justification process which has always been done for IPv4, with the >>> specific differences. It's important to highlight

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On 12/11/2019 00:06, Owen DeLong wrote: This is not something new to be done as it is similar that the justification process which has always been done for IPv4, with the specific differences. It's important to highlight that this doesn't mean one must prove it has 100% IPv6 deployment, but

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I think you miss the point… I’m sure someone will go into the business of announcing IPv6 prefixes for, say, $10/month. For an organization transferring in an IPv4 block, another $120/year is probably cheaper than pushing the IT department to adequately deploy IPv6 to any meaningful level. Of

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

True… Perhaps I should see this as a business opportunity and stop opposing the policy. Nah… I’ll skip the COI and stick to opposing the policy for all of the various reasons stated… It just doesn’t make sense. Owen > On Nov 11, 2019, at 16:37 , Scott Leibrand wrote: > > This policy won’t

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> On Nov 11, 2019, at 16:02 , Mark Andrews wrote: > > > >> On 12 Nov 2019, at 10:12, Scott Leibrand > > wrote: >> >> I think you underestimate the complexity of enterprise networking, and the >> relative lack of skill of the folks managing most enterprise

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I’ve long said that the primary driver to enterprise adoption will most likely be when their employees stop having IPv4 by default at home. It is my opinion that as IPv4 becomes ever more expensive to support eventually some eyeball providers will be forced to add an IPv4 surcharge for those

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> On Nov 11, 2019, at 13:18 , Fernando Frediani wrote: > > Hello Albert > > Reading some comments about the proposal one thing that has been highlighted > is that the mechanism proposed to show IPv6 is operational is simply being > able to communicate to ARIN could be easily fooled I wanted

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

As a registry it has full rights to establish the policies the community find to work better for the region in a well defined and established process. Among its rights are to define the requirements for something related to registration to happen as for example transfers. Regards Fernando On

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Agreed. If you want a meaningful use requirement, legislate a meaningful use requirement. Tie it to free money, as with EHRs and FHIR, or figure out some legislative authority to mandate it. ARIN isn’t a legislative authority: they’re a registry, whose job it is to keep track of who’s using

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I actually hope too that it is not required, but I made the point to show that the game playing could be caught. Also, many are looking at the IPv6 policy as affecting everyone. It does NOT. It will ONLY affect those who receive directed IPv4 transfers. If you have an IPv4 network that is

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Then I guess we need to make the IPv6 connectivity an ongoing obligation to keep the additional IPv4 blocks, rather than a one shot test during transfer to eliminate the game playing. Proof using a mixed web page after they have the block, showing a single user with a cookie has fetched BOTH

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

This policy won’t help that goal. Applicants who have to jump through a hoop will ask “how high”, do the bare minimum (or outsource the task to someone who already has v6 and makes a business of announcing others’ netblocks just long enough to comply), and then stop there. This draft policy

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Well, we can step the standard up to 100% dual stack compliance, but I doubt we can get consensus on that now. In a few years and a new draft, maybe we can do it then. I see it as baby steps to the goal of 100% IPv6. Albert Erdmann Network Administrator Paradise On Line Inc. On Mon, 11 Nov

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

If you want to make meaningful progress, you’re talking about “deploying enough IPv6 to not need another IPv4 block”: that requires either building something to be IPv6-only, or deploying enough IPv6 to reduce the size of the required NAT pool for your remaining IPv4 traffic. Both of those are

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> On 12 Nov 2019, at 10:12, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > I think you underestimate the complexity of enterprise networking, and the > relative lack of skill of the folks managing most enterprise networks, > largely due to the fact that they can't enforce at-scale standardization as > consumer

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

That statement is true now, but will not stay that way. On the residential side and even small business, I can see IPv4 public addresses becoming a "value added" service at an additional cost, with those without it sharing IPv4 public addresses via CGnat, or even an IPv6 only tier promoted

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I think you underestimate the complexity of enterprise networking, and the relative lack of skill of the folks managing most enterprise networks, largely due to the fact that they can't enforce at-scale standardization as consumer networks do (so they can't just hire a small number of software

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

If it is the case that "the vast majority of the current directed transfers are landing in the hands of the major ISP's and Mobile carriers, who have already taken a large step toward IPv6 deployment," Then my question is how is this policy going to be effective in moving the needle for the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Actually the arrogance of enterprises in not turning on IPv6 is astounding. Their customers are being forced to share IP addresses not only between their own machines but between machines from different customers because they can’t take the simple step of turning on IPv6 on their servers. No one

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Yes, this would be a good idea based upon the current IPv4 utilization policy, just without a specific percentage of IPv6 use. This would be a stronger step and statement to IPv6 adoption. In reality, I suspect that the vast majority of the current directed transfers are landing in the hands

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Hello Albert Reading some comments about the proposal one thing that has been highlighted is that the mechanism proposed to show IPv6 is operational is simply being able to communicate to ARIN could be easily fooled I wanted to suggest a text adjustment in order to make it more effective and

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I have a request for any numbers on IPv6 adoption of those who have received directed transfers in the last year, or any other available period. I have looked at some of the blocks that have been transferred, and most of them seem to be obtained by larger ISP or Mobile Wireless providers

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> On Nov 6, 2019, at 13:40 , Fernando Frediani wrote: > > I wanted to kindly request AC members attention to all objections based on > the argument that "ARIN is forcing someone to do something on their own > network”. > > This is NOT true at all and not the propose of this proposal

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

David posted the main issues about the policy: >The questions at hand are whether or not this policy; > 1. Enables Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration My take from the discussion so far is no. > 3. And, is Supported by the Community Apparently not. > In short, is this a good policy?

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Hi Jordi, > I'm not sure if this is a love or a war declaration ... below ... This is war, make no mistake. > In fact, we should aim, as a community (RIRs, IETF, ICANN), to do as much as > we can to start sunseting IPv4 now. This is why we are at war. In 20 years, you have not yet captured

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

In my opinion, this policy is saying that people can't grow their IPv4 network unless they can demonstrate IPv6 capabilities. If you need to grow your IPv4 network, this policy seems somewhat coercive, at least to me. Yes, you can decide not to grow your IPv4 network, in that technical sense it's

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I wanted to kindly request AC members attention to all objections based on the argument that "ARIN is forcing someone to do something on their own network". This is NOT true at all and not the propose of this proposal therefore I believe these kind of objections have been refuted multiple times

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Hi Matthew, > Matthew Wilder wrote : > I have observed the same trend over the years, and I completely agree that > enterprise adoption lags. Where do you put adoption in the enterprise at, today ? It is not easy to get reliable data, but I'm in the high single-digit rate. > I think it can be

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

l ambition to move to a unified protocol version with no reliance on NAT? Thanks! Matthew -Original Message- From: Michel Py Sent: November 6, 2019 04:47 PM To: Matthew Wilder Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Sect

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 12:55:50PM -0500, ARIN wrote: > On 1 November 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-278: > Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers" as a Draft Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19 is below and can be found at: > > Policy statement: > >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Hi Michel, I said google and others. There are many similar stats (ISOC, APNIC, AKAMAI, Facebook, etc.), in fact, I think we are closer to 35% than 30%. Can you really believe is a coincidence that all them are measuring approximately the same figures? You're right in one thing: is 5-10%

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Jordi, I wanted to close the day on a positive note. > Jordi wrote : > I buy you a dinner if not, even in one of the Michelin restaurants in Madrid > if you want! These are not acceptable terms. I buy. You come to California :P For the PPML readers : Jordi and I have met, several times. 20

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> Are you going to challenge ARIN in the court because you don't like the > policy and the > well established policy making process that you signed a contract agreeing > with ? You think I'm the only one ? I can sue you just because I don't like the color of your shirt. > I don't understand

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Matthew, > Matthew Wilder wrote : > The Google IPv6 stats page clearly states that their graph indicates the % of > users who > access Google services using IPv6. That means eyeball networks, enterprise, > non-profit, > government, etc. In other words, you might summarize this by saying "the >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On 06/11/2019 20:40, Michel Py wrote: None of my customers have IPv6. None of my suppliers have IPv6. My current upstream does not have IPv6. If Google goes IPv6-only, I will find another search engine that values my business. There are ZERO others that I wish to connect to that require me

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

John, > I’m quite aware of the report – and I am quoted therein on page 6 arguing a > very > similar point; i.e. that IPv6 may lack sufficient economic incentive to > overtake IPv4 - I read your RFCs. A long time ago. I was a total zealot at that time, FWIW. > doesn’t mean that IPv6 is a

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Hi John, I installed IPv6 on our OpenVMS systems in 2011 (or maybe earlier, 2011 is when I got our IPv6 block through SixXs and the VMS systems were the first ones I configured for IPv6.) :) Unfortunately, neither of our ISPs has IPv6 available in our area yet, though they both claim to

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

ohn Curran Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote : > 30% of *global* Internet traffic, measured by google, among others. I get it, the right way to measure the IPv6

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

This isn't a productive proposal. I’m not in favor of this approach. Best, -M< On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 12:56 ARIN wrote: > On 1 November 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > "ARIN-prop-278: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers" > as a Draft Policy. > > Draft

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> On Nov 6, 2019, at 15:01 , Fernando Frediani wrote: > > To those who oppose because they find the mechanism in the proposal is not > effective do you have an alternative and more effective text to propose so > the author may consider a change. I guess if you the current is ineffective >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On 11/6/2019 03:09 PM, scott wrote: On Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Owen DeLong wrote: Actually, technically, Windows NT would meet the requirement in this proposal. It just couldn’t resolve DNS over IPv6. I remember patching complete, functional v6 support into my 2.4.18 linux kernels, but it looks

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Thinking about this a little more, I oppose this as a requirement to complete IPv4 transfers, as a requirement in section 8. Having to go to the IPv4 market is enough of a hurdle for IPv4 transfers. However, as a requirement for accessing the IPv4 waiting list, as an additional requirement in

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote : > 30% of *global* Internet traffic, measured by google, among others. I get it, the right way to measure the IPv6 part of Internet traffic is at Google, which is IPv6 enabled. Totally scientific. Geez, I wonder if someone was to measure the Windows market share on

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

To those who oppose because they find the mechanism in the proposal is not effective do you have an alternative and more effective text to propose so the author may consider a change. I guess if you the current is ineffective the alternative would have to be more complex but still objective.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On 6 Nov 2019, at 5:05 PM, Michel Py wrote: > > Read this paper. Serious people, funded by ICANN. > Short : > https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/02/20/report-on-ipv6-get-ready-for-a-mixed-internet-world/ > Long : >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

30% of *global* Internet traffic, measured by google, among others. If you read all the details you will understand that the measurements in IX, don't reflect average world traffic, especially when ISPs have their own caches from Google, Facebook, Netflix, Akamai+other CDNs etc., which

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

At 05:05 PM 11/6/2019, Michel Py wrote: John, >> Michel Py wrote : >> IPv6 has failed to deploy for twenty years. Open your eyes. > John Curran wrote : > That's a point that you'll need to prove to the community, if indeed you wish it to be considered in the development of policy. It's

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 10:05:42PM +, Michel Py wrote: [snip] > My ecosystem is IPv4 and it's big enough to survive on its own > forever. So then you're not coming back to the well for more v4 addresses in the ARIN region? Then the policy wouldn't affect you... -- Posted from my personal

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

John, >> Michel Py wrote : >> IPv6 has failed to deploy for twenty years. Open your eyes. > John Curran wrote : > That’s a point that you’ll need to prove to the community, if indeed you wish > it to be considered in the development of policy. https://fedv6-deployment.antd.nist.gov/ Look at

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

. Conquering Complex Networks℠ From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 4:08 PM To: ARIN-PPML List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers I oppose this policy. I'm not convinced of the efficacy

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Michel, The resources of the majority that does not want IPv6 are far greater than the resources of the minority that does. Now you have me really curious. Why are you opposed to IPv6? The digital divide is only widened by resource scarcity, by placing undue burden of cost on the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Hi Michael, With all the respect, 30%+ global IPv6 traffic, I think somebody else should open the eyes! China already mandated it to the ISPs, even if we aren't able to measure it correctly (yet), you can guess that being a country with 1.4 billion inhabitants, this will, in just a couple of

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> Adam Thompson wrote : > If one test VM, one free tunnel, and about 4 hours of time constitute an > "undue" > burden... especially when there's no requirement to leave it up and running. My billing rate is $300/hr. Send me $1200 and I'll do it. > I further believe quite firmly that this policy

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) athomp...@merlin.mb.ca www.merlin.mb.ca > -Original Message- > From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of ARIN > Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 11:56 AM > To: arin-ppml@arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Requir

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I agree with David and at the moment am opposed to this policy proposal. All of my recent employers have provided cloud / web infrastructure services of one sort or another. Some of them provide those services over IPv6, and some don't yet, depending on whether their customers demand it.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On 6 Nov 2019, at 3:58 PM, Michel Py mailto:mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>> wrote: John Curran wrote : you might find it difficult to argue that you wish the benefits of cooperation minus whatever obligations that community collectively establishes. You might find difficult to explain to

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I fully support this proposal. Sooner or later goverments will start protecting citizens against organizations that provide services not supporting IPv6. ASAP we start making that ourselves, by all possible means, much better than being regulated. I've only a comment. Replace migration working

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

ARIN make the policies that were agreed and must be followed by everybody who signed a contract with them and which will surely be honored by any court. Any business has rules and regulations to be followed and not always Congress make them. It's quiet normal really. This proposal does not make

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I oppose this policy. I'm not convinced of the efficacy of this policy, the policy's ability to produce its intended or desired result. I presume the intended result is to increase the deployment of IPv6. I'm not convinced that creating artificial hurdles for IPv4 will increase the deployment of

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> John Curran wrote : > you might find it difficult to argue that you wish the benefits of > cooperation minus whatever obligations that community collectively > establishes. You might find difficult to explain to your members the legal costs associated with pursuing a crusade that has failed

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Michel Py wrote: sc...@solarnetone.org What do you normally do when hardware or software hits EOL? I keep it until I serves no purpose. How do you manage the security problems with software and hardware components which are no longer receiving support from either the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On 6 Nov 2019, at 3:23 PM, Michel Py wrote: > There is no law that says I need IPv6, therefore the courts will hear my case > for undue burden. Michel - As ARIN is not a governmental authority (but rather administering the registry on behalf of the community via a set of contracts), you’ll

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I support this proposal and consider it is very welcome and came at a right time. It makes total sense to require networks at minimal to show IPv6 is operational in order to transfer more IPv4. It shows a commitment with all others, otherwise the opposite is really bad for whole Internet

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> Further, getting a court order to split the registry apart is even a greater > stretch. ARIN does not make the laws in the United States. See you in court, you can have your little IPv6-only world to yourself. Michel. ___ ARIN-PPML You are

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> hostmas...@uneedus.com > However I have also had IPv6 since 2007. I was on the 6bone. Michel. ___ 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

No problem. However under this policy draft, you would no longer receive any additional IPv4 addresses from ARIN. Further, getting a court order to split the registry apart is even a greater stretch. I have legacy stuff. However I have also had IPv6 since 2007. It was initially done as a

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

At 02:20 PM 11/6/2019, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: If you choose to ignore IPv6, I think it is reasonable for ARIN to tell you no new IPv4 addresses for you. Why is that reasonable? I think it's reasonable that an organization may choose to deploy IPv6. I also think it's reasonable that

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

> sc...@solarnetone.org > What do you normally do when hardware or software hits EOL? I keep it until I serves no purpose. I repeat : ARIN will not force me to waste time filling IPv6 paperwork without consequences. If ARIN wants to go IPv6-only, there will be a nice case in court to split the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On 11/6/19 9:55 AM, ARIN wrote: > On 1 November 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > "ARIN-prop-278: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers" > as a Draft Policy. I support this policy smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Owen DeLong wrote: Actually, technically, Windows NT would meet the requirement in this proposal. It just couldn’t resolve DNS over IPv6. I remember patching complete, functional v6 support into my 2.4.18 linux kernels, but it looks like the first v6 code appeared in

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Nor would IPv6 dns resolution be required in order to meet the proposal. When it was discussed on the list, there was discussion of how you can prove an IPv6 block is routed. This is a good answer, simply require that you can actually use the block of IPv6 addresses to communicate. It could

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Actually, technically, Windows NT would meet the requirement in this proposal. It just couldn’t resolve DNS over IPv6. Owen > On Nov 6, 2019, at 11:40 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > Also, you can under this proposal still have that Windows 3.1 workstation, or > even a DOS workstation

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Also, you can under this proposal still have that Windows 3.1 workstation, or even a DOS workstation using packet drivers. All it says is that 1) You have an IPv6 Assignment or Allocation from ARIN, and 2) You have at least ONE workstation on it that is capable of communicating using that

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Michel Py wrote: I oppose this proposal. If I am ever in a position where ARIN is trying to force me to request or use IPv6, I will sue ARIN for imposing an undue burden. What do you normally do when hardware or software hits EOL? I am serious. If ARIN generates

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

Arin also does not have to allow you to transfer any new IPv4 addresses to your Org either. It is perfectly reasonable for ARIN to set forth conditions that Orgs must meet in order to receive IPv4 resources. There are already several other conditions in place. This proposal simply adds one

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I oppose this proposal. If I am ever in a position where ARIN is trying to force me to request or use IPv6, I will sue ARIN for imposing an undue burden. I am serious. If ARIN generates more work for me, I will explore all options to be compensated. Michel.

[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On 1 November 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-278: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers" as a Draft Policy. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_19/ You are encouraged to discuss