Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
At 11:11 07/02/17, Geoff Huston wrote:
>It always struck me that IPv6 represents an incremental and quite conservative step in technology over IPv4, but without the conventional attributes of incremental piecemeal deployment that technology incrementalism usually achieves . The fact that IPv6 deployment is not incrementally deployable, is not backward compatible with IPv4, and is not a deployment that makes sense to undertake in isolation, makes the business case fro deployment really hard to phrase for many actors. The alternative, of more and more dense NAT deployment, simply transfers the cost of address scarcity to others and stays within some form of "comfort zone" of not changing all that much from where we are today. Its not that IPv6 is the "only" way forward here, but perhaps the more constructive question is what is the _preferred_ way forward, and can the environment be structured so as to make such a preferred path a 'natural' one for industry actors to follow?
Site-level NATs have already contributed to address conservation very much, but not will do more.
Provider-lever NATs is technically possible, but not a good solution, I believe. It would be much better
to pay money for IPv6 than for provider-level NATs.
>The other question that I've been asking myself in this topic stream is how and why adoption of this form of policy regarding IPv4 unallocated pool exhaustion would assist us to transition out of the current address distribution regime without major negative forms of disruption to the Internet. Personally, I've not yet seen a clear and convincing case (for me at any rate) to answer this concern.
IPv4 exhaustion gives negative impact, more or less.
The issue here is how to reduce the pain. As Randy said, choice of
short sharp pain or long-term pain well describes this issue.
Anyway, time proceeds. We have to confront this issue seriously
and as soon as possible.
Regards,
Takashi Arano