Completely disagree with any attempt to force ipv6 adoption by conditioning IPv4 on it.
These should remain seperate. On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 06:34 Steven Ryerse via ARIN-PPML < arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote: > I completely disagree with any attempt to force IPv6 adoption via IPv4 > policy. The right incentive to go to IPv6 is market incentive (i.e. > Customer Demand). Trying to use policies based on IPv4 from an RIR as > force is the absolute wrong way to garner IPv6 adoption. > > As everyone knows, early on there was incentive to use IPv4 because that > was the only way to connect to Internet back then. Once there are enough > valuable services and needs met that are available only on an IPv6 platform > - customers will demand the switch. Incentives are good but force is not > good for a change of this magnitude. > > Work on the incentive side if you want to help facilitate the switch. I > have yet to have a customer ask us for IPv6 even though we offer it. My > two cents! đ > > > Steven Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/100+Ashford+Center+North,+Suite+110,+Atlanta,+GA%C2%A0+30338?entry=gmail&source=g> > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392.0076 - Fax > > â Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networksâ > > -----Original Message----- > From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> On Behalf Of Fernando > Frediani > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 1:46 PM > To: arin-ppml@arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-19 Require IPv6 before receiving > Section 8 IPv4 Transfers > > I believe this is some kind of political correctness way of dealing with > this topic. While many support the adoption of IPv6 and recognize the > critical need of it for the Internet ecosystem to continue work smoothly > and to avoid many conflicts that will arise otherwise, they don't seem to > want to offend others colleagues believing this will 'force' them to deploy > IPv6. That has never been the case of this proposal. > It was said many times this doesn't force those who wish to remain > IPv4-only for whatever time they need. > > But let's think of the whole thing. Don't just concentrate on the saying > "My network my rules" because that is too simplistic and too vague. > When you operate in internet and in a registry system you must evolve > along with others and for the whole thing to keep working in a > "interconnected environment", so it is not just about "your rules". > > For those who deny IPv6 adoption or even those who feel others are being > terribly forced to something I would invite your to think that this all is > a question of what problem to choose. "Force" others to something small > (really this proposal isn't something that forceful if you think better - > it's just another small thing to add up to efforts towards the obvious > where the internet must go) or you choose the issue of increasing conflicts > that will happen because of the IPv4 exhaustion and that ultimately will > end up in this forum. Organizations still dependent of IPv4 (because many > others didn't want to offend colleagues who still deny IPv6) that feel they > are being treated unfairly, brokers constantly trying to change the rules > meet their own interests, companies that may not understand yet the issue > forcing to a specific direction to solve their particular problem or even > organizations that may choose to sue the RIR because they feel they are > being treated unfairly and having their business damaged. Either way they > will happen and we have the opportunity to smooth it a bit by adopting this > proposal which goes towards the only direction Internet has to go for now > and, once again, it is not that forceful. > > Lastly I want to invite all that support IPv6 to think also about the > morals of what is happening. I don't mean to offend anyone, but in my view > it is immoral to all community to keep transferring more and more > IPv4 and not have any commitment to IPv6 as if it was a cosmetic thing. > This proposal doesn't say organization who are in need of more IPv4 to > operate cannot keep transferring them, but just ask these to show some > commitment to IPv6. > > It was already mentioned in the previous discussions this forum has full > rights to establish how the registry is administered and the rules that > apply to transfers. There is nothing illegal on that and it's nothing > absurd or abrupt, so making this move is a little effort that contributed > to something that will happen in a way or another, more smoothy if you > choose to support this proposal or with pain if you do not. > > Therefore I keep supporting this proposal and would also support IPv6 > requirements for receiving a block via the ARIN wait-list. > > Best regards > Fernando Frediani > > On 13/01/2020 14:40, Michael Peddemors wrote: > > Frankly, I agree with earlier detractors.. > > > > While it may be important to ARIN to push for IPv6 adoption, I don't > > believe using IPv4 allocation policies as a method to 'force' adoption > > is a wise or efficient method for encouraging adoption.. > > > > I believe you should simply keep both purposes separate.. totally. > > > > There are other ways to encourage IPv6 adoption, and it should be left > > up to the industry, and not ARIN policy, and it should NOT hamstring > > those who for one reason or another feel no need to consider IPv6 at > > this time. > > > > There might be legitimate reasons, that while we may not understand or > > fathom them, and are important to the person looking for IPv4 waiting > > lists and/or transfers, but who are we to say.. > > > > > > > > On 2020-01-13 9:06 a.m., Andrew Dul wrote: > >> Happy New Year everyone... > >> > >> We had a robust discussion on this list before the New Year, but it > >> was clear that we don't have consensus on the current draft. Thus to > >> help move this draft forward... I'm proposing a couple of questions > >> to see if we can find middle ground here to update the text of the > >> draft policy. > >> > >> The policy as written today would require organizations who wish to > >> obtain an IPv4 transfer to complete a limited scope IPv6 deployment. > >> > >> Do you support any IPv6 requirements on an IPv4 transfer? > >> > >> Would you support IPv6 requirements for receiving a block via the > >> ARIN wait-list? > >> > >> Do you support different IPv6 deployment criteria that would qualify > >> an organization for a IPv4 transfer? (Such as, just requiring the > >> org to have an IPv6 allocation or assignment from ARIN) Please > >> propose different IPv6 criteria that you would support if the current > >> criteria is unacceptable. > >> > >> > >> Thanks for your comments on this draft, > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> === > >> > >> *Current Policy Statement:* > >> > >> In section 8.5.2, add the following language to the end of the > >> paragraph entitled âOperational Useâ: > >> > >> Such operational network must at minimum include an allocation or > >> assignment by ARIN of IPv6 address space under the same Org ID > >> receiving the transferred IPv4 space. Such Org must be able to prove > >> this IPv6 space is being routed by using it to communicate with ARIN. > >> > >> In the event the receiver provides a written statement from its > >> upstream that IPv6 connectivity is unavailable, the IPv6 requirement > >> may be waived. > >> > >> === > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.arin.net%2f > >> mailman%2flistinfo%2farin-ppml&c=E,1,i7R2iUzjMLMMvrOuH9it4Xcv_k3v8c1A > >> GM3Hie_dYVLVM5PWjf9pR9LEuYNsf2gJUhN9FFsQBeuOTkBhlFlfUp_2o_EtjlFndlb_k > >> vSCvJh0QMuEDA,,&typo=1 Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience > >> any issues. > >> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.arin.net%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2farin-ppml&c=E,1,G8dPvbE8wqXWcHcHrKcKpzTfxfhwJBW0FNFa27GCl_xnqCK2tCdJ9eSivtF0NBx-rgjPZ-lCqDmTDnewr2lf-4ndO-HLqr7oAQUSFPvxClR-G39T9slOdGxspJA,&typo=1 > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile
_______________________________________________ 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.