I think you have it backwards. IPv4 band-aids don't cause IPv6 delays. Its the substantial resistance to IPv6 that causes IPv4 band-aids.
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
The full text of the policy
The full text of the policy proposal has already been posted to ARIN's Public Policy Mailing list. You can see that post, and links to the full PPML archive showing the discussion of the policy proposal, at http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2008-February/009976.html
As alluded to in the article, it's worth noting that ARIN has a public policy development process, in which any interested parties can participate, via the PPML and/or at the public meeting. This policy proposal will only be adopted if there is community consensus to do so.
I would also agree with the previous comment that the need for this policy proposal is driven by the fact that not all networks are ready to deploy IPv6, and transition mechanisms are not yet well-developed enough to allow large IPv6 networks to communicate with IPv4 networks without running dual stack (IPv4+IPv6). As a result, there will be continued demand for IPv4 addresses after the exhaustion of the free pool, so a transfer policy like this proposal is needed to meet that need.
RE: Could IP address plan mean another IPv6 delay?
On the other hand, this might create a business case for some organizations to move to IPv6. That is, if they can transition their networks to IPv6, possible since IPv6 is now included in Vista, MacOS, Linux, BSD, etc, most router vendors, etc., etc., they could sell their IPv4 addresses and more than recover their costs of supporting IPv6. They can use IPv6-IPv4 translators to talk to the legacy IPv4 Internet with the same service they get from NAT today. The result would be to turn the IPv4 to IPv6 transition from an expense to a revenue opportunity.
The big question regarding IPv6 migration
Is your equipment capable of supporting IPv6 and is it stable? With Cisco it's highly questionable but globally where IPv6 adoption rate is high, such as in Asia and Europe, they've adopted Juniper which is known for its mature and solid IPv6 implementation.
IPv4 Transfer: Could it Really Clog the Internet
"• Will IPv4 address transfers swamp the Internet's core routers with too many routing table announcements from ISPs?"
The article really makes a good point here... The traffic that could be produced by transfers (with respect to internet architecture) takes on a pebble in the pond effect...one change cause and announcement...which causes and announcement, and so forth.
I wonder if the proposal has any provisions for when transfers are to take place. For example: once per quarter, Semi-Annual, Yearly...etc. I think that would go a long way towards managing traffic that results transfers.
An aside: If IPv6 was intended to replace IPv4 (because of an expected shortage), wouldn't freeing up additional IPv4 address space be counter- productive. I understand the argument that freeing some space will stave of a shortage, giving admins a chance to complete to migration. However, most admins may be content to wait, given the prospect that IPv4 to v6 transition may be delayed.
Info
Here's some info on what they actually had to do:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/vegoda-reclaiming-our.pdf
Post new comment