Search RPD Archives
[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS
owen at delong.com
Wed Jul 26 22:16:43 UTC 2017
> On Jul 26, 2017, at 12:19 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2017 12:23 a.m., "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
> Yes, I oppose soft landing proposals because they are fundamentally flawed and I believe that extending the life of IPv4 artificially for some by denying it to others,
> How about the IPv4 transfer market?
> Doesn't it also extend the life of IPv4 artificially?
To a much lesser extent. Further, it doesn’t take addresses away from people that currently need them in order to hold them for some unknown and possibly non-existent future need.
> especially in the case of holding it for unknown future users to the detriment of those with immediate and present need is both bad resource management and also fosters an errant perception that an extended life for IPv4 is possible
> The IPv4 transfer market is already making that IPv4 future possible.
No, it actually isn’t.
> and therefore there is no need to implement IPv6 or that delaying IPv6 implementation is harmless and risk free.
> This has nothing to do with IPv6 but everything to do with IPv$.
Interesting choice of words. Care to clarify what, exactly you are meaning by IPv$ and how this policy proposal relates to monetization of IPv4 addresses?
If you think that this doesn’t have anything to do with IPv6, then you are either not paying attention or you are sadly mistaken.
> I do find it interesting that amidst all of the opposition to Soft Landing proposals, you have chosen to promote me to chief opposer (is that a real title?)
> I’m not sure what gives you the power to appoint me to such a position, but I suppose if there needs to be one, then I am perfectly willing to fulfill the role as required in the face of such a fundamentally bad proposal.
> You have since ceased from being the chief opposer of solflanding policies and I now give that title to our good friend Andrew :-)
LoL… Yet neither he nor I have changed our level of opposition to soft landing.
> Andrew takes the title now because he doesnt believe in any form of softlanding policy amendment beyond the status quo even though he authored a softlanding-overhaul policy proposal and then went on to withdraw it.
He offered a less destructive alternative to this proposal as an attempt at a compromise that might serve the community. When the community requested and authors of both proposals agreed to withdraw their respective proposals, he acted in good faith to withdraw that proposal assuming that the authors of this proposal would do likewise based on their word. Sadly, the authors of this proposal did not follow through on that commitment and we find ourselves here with this proposal still standing despite community opposition and with you somehow claiming that the good faith withdrawal of the other proposal and the failure to act in good faith by the authors here somehow constitutes merit for this proposal.
I find this reasoning very strange, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
In any case, I remain opposed to Soft Landing bis (and likely any other change to the current soft landing policy other than possibly repealing it completely) and I also remain opposed to the current text in the resource review policy (while I don’t oppose reviews conceptually).
Frankly, IMHO, the preservation of IPv4 is strictly a way of inflicting additional cost and pain on the majority of the internet. Unfortunately, much like toxic polluters of the 70s and 80s, most of the cost and pain is inflicted on those who are ready for IPv6 rather than those who remain unprepared for that future. The good news is that if the current adoption rates continue, the holdouts that haven’t implemented IPv6 will become mostly irrelevant relatively soon and when the rest of us start turning off IPv4, they will be the ones left out in the cold wondering what happened instead of inflicting costs and pain on the rest of us.
The sooner the internet moves on from its unhealthy IPv4 addiction the better. I’m pretty sure you know this as well as I do, despite all of your apparent protestations to the contrary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD