[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG (was: Re: Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013)

[Roland Perry]

In message <3430BB8D-B9C7-4F20-B79F-1EC04F004CE0 at corp.arin.net>, at 
07:17:07 on Wed, 25 Dec 2013, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> writes
>On Dec 24, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Brian E Carpenter 
><brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25/12/2013 09:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> ...
>>> IPv6 deployment does not having anything like as much as a hard deadline
>>> to deal with.
>>
>> No. It is happening at a natural rate, as operators and content providers
>> see the need arising. Since there is no prospect of the supply of IPv6
>> addresses running out for the next few centuries, there is no issue
>> specific to IPv6 that calls for a governance discussion.
>
>"IPv6 Deployment" could refer to many different aspects of IPv6, and
>I am not certain that we can definitely state that there is no need
>for greater cooperation among all Internet stakeholders regarding its
>deployment.  If you are simply referring to rate of deployment, that
>might be the case, but that isn't the entire picture.

I'm simply saying there isn't one date (for the sake of argument 1st 
January 2015) when chaos might very predictably break out overnight as a 
result of lack of preparations, and which concentrates minds 
accordingly.

There is plenty of evidence that greater cooperation in general will 
make the transition sooner/better. Not least coming from the suppliers 
of end-user solutions (the 'corporate end' has plenty of resources to 
get this sort of thing right in plenty of time if they wanted to).

>For example, it is now recognized that IPv6 deployment is going to be
>both prolonged and asynchronous.

And not, after all, turn into a bloodbath after some specific date (eg 
when IANA issued the last /8 to the RIRs).

>Saying that something is "on the Internet" today when it actually is 
>not IPv6-reachable is likely a form of unintended misrepresentation, 
>since dual-stack is the official transition strategy and IPv6 is now in 
>production.

Not just "on the Internet", but "providing Internet connectivity". In a 
perfect world of everything-end-to-end these would be identical, but I 
don't (for example) think I've ever been offered a static IP address on 
mobile phone connectivity in the UK the whole 12 years or so I've been 
buying it. And it doesn't seem to be getting any better (even if the 
Megabytes/£ has improved a lot).

>Another issue relates to the net neutrality aspects of continued IPv4
>usage via CGN gateways.
...
>These same CGN devices also are very problematic for legitimate law
>enforcement activities, requiring complex log synchronization and new
>retention requirements.

I agree. Although there are many who value their privacy (and in very 
different scenarios their unaccountability) and are probably quite happy 
about that situation.

>The IPv6 deployment rate may not be issue (if one accepts market-based
>deployment model) but "IPv6 deployment" still has significant potential
>for issues in consumer confusion, indirect net neutrality implications,
>tracking issues for law enforcement due to widespread CGN use, and more.

Lots of richness there.

>I do not think that "IPv6 Deployment" can be readily dismissed as a
>potential topic rich with Internet governance/coordination implications.

Some double-negative ambiguity there. Did you mean: I do not think that 
"IPv6 Deployment" can be readily dismissed as a potential topic *that is 
devoid of* Internet governance/coordination implications.

>Disclaimer: My views alone.

It'd also be interesting to hear ARIN's views here, if it could be 
arranged to nominate someone to promulgate them. The same with the 
corporate views of other I-star organisations; I have no axe to grind 
with any of them individually.
-- 
Roland Perry