[governance] Why we need IPv6 and why you should care

[Thomas Narten]

Milton,

> > and
> > from a public policy perspective, overwhelmingly negative.

> That depends on the incidence of costs and benefits, i.e. the
> distributional effects of the transition. Those distributional effects
> are in turn functions of public policy. So one cannot make a categorical
> statement that the policy effects are negative. Rather, one should say
> that policy(ies) should be forged that maximize the benefits of the
> transition and avoid costs and disruptions, but do not try to force
> people into a transition that doesn't make economic or technical sense
> for specific entities.

I don't get this. What public policy needs forging here? The entire
IPv6 deployment thing is playing out in the free market. Governments
are playing a minor role. There is very little they can do to change
the economic fundamentals. Especially given the decentralized and
uregulated nature of the Internet. 

Again, the reason IPv6 has not been deployed is entirely economic. A
week to non-existant business case. I don't see how public policy can
change that much.  (Or maybe I don't understand what "public policy"
is supposed to mean in this context.)

> To put it perhaps more simply deploying or not deploying v6 will be
> strongly influenced by "public policy", and that means that RIRs and
> ISPs will be policy makers.

ISPs? Maybe. Truth be told, end users don't need ISPs to use
IPv6. There are transition techniques for enabling IPv6 at end sites
even if ISPs don't cooperate. One can simply tunnel over the local
ISP. Microsoft Vista includes Teredo technology, which is specifically
designed to do this. I point this out mainly to say that it is not a
requirement that ISPs deploy this first.

Bottom line: ISPs will deploy IPv6 when customers ask for it. But they
won't deploy it in the absence of demand or a compelling business
case. The profit margins in the ISP business are too thin for them to
act otherwise.

RIRs? They have already done the public policy part. They have an open
PDP, and they have developed policies for giving out IPv6 address
space. ISPs and end users can obtain address space. If there are
issues with what they have done, this list is the wrong place for that
discussion (if one actually wants to make changes).

The debate about whether RIRs should do more to help get IPv6 deployed
is not new and has been going on in the RIR community for
years. Indeed, in response to such concerns, a number of the RIRs have
reduced (or done away with) fees for IPv6 address space.

Although it makes for a good sound bite, RIR policies are not a
serious impediment to deploying IPv6.

> It is possible to have policies that promote v6 deployment that have
> overwhelmingly negative effects, and it is possible to have policies
> that are designed to preserve the viabnility of v4 as long as
> possible that might have good public interest effects.

Sure, in theory, I agree with you. But in practice, it would be more
helpful to point to specifics -- to highlight actual policies that are
problematic, rather than implying there may be issues through general
(but unsubstantiated) statements.

Thomas
____________________________________________________________
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