[governance] IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format

[Thomas Narten]

Milton,

> The reason people use the "transition" term in connection with v4-v6 is
> the possibility of address space exhaustion in the v4 space.

Actually, the reason people use the term "transition" is because the
IETF used those terms from the beginning. Even today, we have
"transition" techniques. That is what they are called in the official
standards, and those names have been picked up and carried through via
vendor literature. In retropsect, a poor choice of terms, but there it
is.

"Transition" (when you talk to businesses) raises big alarm
bells. Something close to panic, because their first reaction is "I
have to turn off IPv4 and move to IPv6? No way!". They do not want to
have to move from IPv4 (a business-critical infrastructure) to
something new and unproven and (presumably) costly. Luckily, when one
speaks to these same parties and explains that it's not really about
transition (in a flag day sense), but about coexistance, the
conversation immediately gets better.

Also, we should be very careful about using the term "address
exhaustion". There will be no IPv4 address exhaustion. We have some 4B
IPv4 addresses, and they are not going to go away. :-)

The correct term is "exhaustion of the IPv4 free pool". Perhaps
caveated with "the IANA" or "the RIR" free pool.

When the free pool is exhausted, people will still be able to obtain
addresses. But the cost will go up, and there may be issues associated
with those addresses (e.g., they may be private, rather than public,
or they may belong to routing prefixes that cover few addresses, and
thus may not actually be routable on the public Internet (meaning they
are little better than private addresses), etc.) 

> Your comments below seem to imply a leisurely, choice-based
> migration - which for some players may indeed be the case, but what
> seems more likely is a game in which those who move to v6 first
> create costs and burdens for themselves and so everyone has an
> incentive to let others move first and stay in the v4 space as long
> as possible.

That is exactly the situation we have today. No one wants to go first,
because the cost/benefit argument favors delay.

> So, from my point of view the issue is not the abandonment of v4, but
> getting stuck in it forever.

We will only abandon IPv4 if the cost of maintaining it exceeds the
cost of moving to IPv6. Different entities will see the costs/benefits
(for them) differently. Some will find it beneficial to move, some
will find it better to just stay with IPv4 as long as possible.

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