[governance] Has the technical community failed wrt IPv6' .... Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet Resources'

[McTim]

On Nov 7, 2007 11:00 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Well, let me be radical about this and suggest that IPv6 has already failed
> and will never be rolled out.

Tell that to the 1000+ networks that are already announcing IPv6 prefixes!

<snip>

> The world has changed since then and it's just possible that a more creative
> way of expanding the number pool might be available to us now that wasn't
> thought about then.

Could you be more specific?

It is also possible that we are dealing with an adoption
> problem of a scale not anticipated at the time (particularly given the long
> unanticipated lead time in rollout).
>

Clearly the case.

> If it's consumers who are supposed to lead the adoption of IPv6, I suggest
> it will never succeed. As everyone agrees, there is no business case. NO
> business case, no rollout, no IPv6. That's the laws of the universe.


But there will be a biz case if /when

a) mandated (or encouraged by carrots) via gov't intervention

b) after v4 runout

>
> I will also say it doesn't matter - because the problem is not non-adoption
> of IPv6, as we have begun to believe - it's that numbers are supposed to run
> out and probably will unless something changes.
>
> If we think through a decent mitigation strategy there are a number of
> things that can be done to ensure that doesn't happen for another 20 years

20??? That's very optimistic! This just puts off the problem that has
already been put off for ~10 years, so we would leave it to another
generation to face the same issues?

> or more. That gives time for a more elegant approach to number pool
> expansion than IPv6 to emerge.
>
> To their credit, both Geoff Huston and Randy Bush have begun to think about
> these alternative mitigation strategies - although both seem to still cling
> at times to the hope that the laws of markets and the laws of human
> behaviour will suddenly change and IPv6 will suddenly be adopted but a lot
> later than first expected. (That's sometimes called denial). The last great
> hope seems to be that when the last number runs out someone (probably in an
> underdeveloped country) will scream and we will all change. Yeah, right
> on....

In many of the proposals being considered by the RIR communities, each
RIR will get "N" /8s at a certain point in time (when there are x /8s
unallocated in the free pool).

Because of faster burn rates in NA and EU, this will probably mean
that here in Africa, we will have the last IPv4 to give out.

In other words, EU may run out first, followed closely by NA/Asia,
then LAC, and finally Africa. There are other proposals that would
change this scenario though.

>
> Sorry to rain on the parade, but really the answer to the number pool
> expansion problem requires us to be realistic rather than hopeful, and to be
> prepared to be flexible with approaches rather than clinging to an approach
> that hasn't worked.
>
> So let me say it again - the problem is not that people are not adopting
> IPv6. The problem is that we have not yet arrived at a strategy for dealing
> with number pool expansion that is acceptable to all major stakeholders and
> is scaleable to future needs. We need a major rethink - and I really don't
> think it will be a difficult problem to solve if we put our efforts into
> alternative approaches rather than "flogging a dead horse".
>
> But back to Guru's question about what this has to do with governance. Quite
> a lot. Neither IGF in it's current state or current "governance"
> institutions of a technical nature

The governance institutions that deal with these are actually
administrative in nature.

 are adequate as they exist now to deal
> with this problem without further levels of involvement (that's
> self-evident).

Self evident to you perhaps, but not to many others who have spoken on
this topic. (TA, GAC, ALAC, etc)

Structural change is probably necessary to ensure the levels
> of talent and skills and political and business impact necessary to deal
> with this and a host of other (probably more pressing) issues.
>

By the time you get your "structural change" together, the IPv4 pool
will be exhausted.  Best to work within the current system which is
deeply engaged in finding solutions in this space!

<snip>


--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance