YOU don't have to pay like everyone else?
Flip it around: Why should WE care about IPv6? WE would have to sign an
onerous RSA with ARIN, giving up some of our rights in the process.
WE have sufficient IP space to sit it out awhile; by doing that, WE save
cash in a tight economy. WE are not so large that we spend four figures
without batting an eyelash, so that's attractive.
You don't. No one is going to make you set up IPv6. If you
don't ever want or need to reach v6 enabled hosts, that's fine...
Depending on your business, you may never need to change. But
maybe someday you will want to, and you can set up v6 then. For a lot
of folks, especially ISP's and content providers, there is much to be
gained by deploying early: operational experience, and competitive
advantage. It may not all go smoothly, so the sooner folks who know
they will need IPv6, get started, the more time they have to work out
any kinks. I think that is one of the interesting things about this
problem. Unlike y2k, the deadline is different for everyone - and
depends a lot on what your business is.
Seriously? "an onerous RSA" What, specifically, do you
consider so onerous? Are there no other situations where you willingly
give up certain rights in order to obtain a service, or for the
betterment or stability of your community/society? When you purchase
internet transit, you surely sign a contract that has some terms
of service, including an Acceptable Use Policy. You likely give up the
right to spam, host copyrighted works, the right to intentionally
disrupt networks, etc. It's likely that your provider can
terminate services for violations. Do you consider this onerous? Even
if you did, it didn't stop you from purchasing service.
Further, anyone who is providing IPv6-only content has cut off most of
the Internet, so basically no significant content is available on IPv6-
only. That means there is no motivation for US to jump on the IPv6
Even more, anyone who is on an IPv6-only eyeball network is cut off from
most of the content of the Internet; this means that ISP's will be
having to provide IPv6-to-v4 services. Either they'll be good, or if
customers complain, WE will be telling them how badly their ISP sucks.
*I* am personally convinced that IPv6 is great, but on the other hand, I
do not see so much value in v6 that I am prepared to compel the
budgeting for ARIN v6 fees, especially since someone from ARIN just
described all the ways in which they fritter away money.
You can get IPv6 addresses from your upstream provider, often
times free of charge, you don't ever have to deal with ARIN if you don't
want to. You won't ever have to sign and agreement with ARIN if
you don't want to. But, if you want to get a direct allocation, you
got to pay to play - and also, agree to play by the same rules
that everyone else is - it's a social contract of sorts- give up some
rights in order to gain some benefits.
As a result, the state of affairs simply retards the uptake and adoption
of v6 among networks that would otherwise be agreeable to the idea; so,
tell me, do you see that as being beneficial to the Internet community
at large, or not?
Note that I'm taking a strongly opposing stance for the sake of debate,
the reality is a bit softer. Given a moderately good offer, we'd almost
certainly adopt IPv6.
"Moderately good offer"
Like getting a prefix from your provider? Probably for free,
without signing anything from ARIN. Have you talked to your provider?
Or a certain well known tunnel broker will give you a /48 along w/ a
route-views6.routeviews.org> sh bgp ipv6
BGP routing table entry for 2001:590::/32
Paths: (15 available, best #6, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
Not advertised to any peer
33437 6939 4436
2001:4810::1 from 2001:4810::1 (220.127.116.11)
Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external
Last update: Thu Apr 8 20:43:30 2010