Re: The point is to change it: Was: IPv4 depletion makes CNN

On 5/30/2010 3:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> We keep coming back to the same old problem and the same reasons we
> are going to hope it solves itself without having to change anything.
>
> 1) Its the wrong type of pain
>
> IPv4 exhaustion does cause problems, but not really enough problems or
> immediate enough problems to create an incentive to move away from the
> IPv4 Internet.
AMEN, and ARIN could recover any number of multiply issued /8's to 
corporate entities who acquired blocks by merger, like HP for instance. 
The have TANDEM's DEC's Compaq's and HP's /8's and do they need anywhere 
near that many IPv4 addresses?
NO...

So the issue is ARIN and its sloppy operating policies - and yes Cathy 
(their attorney) has heard this from me already.
> It really does not matter very much to the typical Internet user if
> there are other people unable to join the party. It matters even less
> to them if those people are in far away countries.
Duh... the only people who need a fully flat-routed world are the 
Standards Practitioners.
> 2) NAT-NAT IPv4 still beats IPv6
>
> Even with the restrictions of carrier NAT, most Internet users are
> going to prefer an Internet connection that gives access to the
> millions of IPv4 hosts than the hundreds of IPv6 hosts.
Yep

> This is an adoption trap. Nobody is going to move to IPv6 unless the
> functionality is superior to IPv4.
>
> Saying that IPv6 is X years behind is to miss the point.
>
>
> 3) There is no ask
>
> ISOC and others are very good at putting out these stories warning
> about the imminent IPv4 exhaustion.  But this is wasted effort when
> the message reaches people who can do nothing in response.
>
> For a message to be effective, there has to be an ask, there has to be
> something concrete that the audience can do in response.
>
>
> As before I will suggest how I would address the issue:
>
> 1) Branding
>
> Every technology company that has wanted to establish an
> infrastructure to support their product has used branding as leverage.
> Remember 'Novell Ready', 'Entrust Ready', 'Windows Vista Ready'?
>
> We need an Internet Next Ready. And when consumers see that brand they
> need to know that what they are getting is going to work with the next
> generation Internet. Demanding 'Internet Next Ready' in new products,
> in Internet service is the ask.
yes but this then is a marketing effort to convince people (the end 
users) that they need this new gizmo more than the old gizmo and not a 
technological one.
> 2) Design for deployment
>
> People are not going to use IPv6 if it takes the slightest effort on
> their part.
Yep...

> People are not going to switch their home networks over to
> IPv6 if it means a single device on the network is going to stop
> working. In my case it would cost me $4K to upgrade my 48" plotter to
> an IPv6 capable system. No way is that going to happen till there are
> $50 IPv6 plotters on EBay.
>
> I try to do as little management of my home network as possible. For
> the architecture to be acceptable it has to be totally transparent to
> me. Otherwise carrier grade NAT is going to be preferable as at least
> that is going to work.
Yep, meaning that NAT and not IPv6 is the solution.

> 3) Create incentives
>
> Even with branding, the incentives have to make sense. Merely having
> access to the IPv6 Internet available is not going to cause people to
> use it. Pretty much every host on the Internet can use IPSEC at this
> point. The portion that use it is ~ 0%.
This speaks all that needs to be said here, so unless there is some real 
reason that the Internet is going to break unless IPv6 is rolled out 
there is no reason to do it.
Again - IPv4 and NAT are a very reasonable solution as it network 
segmentation.
> The way that I plot out a campaign is to list every stakeholder that I
> need to take action. I consider the positive/negative balance sheet
> from their point of view. I look at the incentive they have to take
> action and how they are to get the message that they need to take
> action.
>
>
> Now I can draft out an architecture that would have the necessary
> properties quite easily. And so could many others on this list. But
> that would be a mistake. In order to get buy in from all the people
> whose buy in is needed, they have to be involved at the design stage.
>
> Having the had the opportunity to be involved is not the same thing.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

tglassey.vcf
Description: Vcard

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf