[ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6

[Scott Leibrand]

Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> From sleibrand at internap.com  Tue Jul 31 14:27:24 2007
>> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:27:09 -0700
>> From: Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com>
>> To: craig.finseth at state.mn.us
>> CC: bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com, ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6
>>
>> Craig and Robert,
>>
>> Have you deployed IPv6 across your network yet?  If not, could you do so 
>> within 6 months?  An IPv4 allocation is usually sized for 6 months of 
>> growth, so this proposal would require all growing IP networks to deploy 
>> IPv6 within 6 months, instead of allowing them to do so over the next 
>> few years (between now and when they can no longer grow with IPv4).
>>     
>
> Yes, it requires that one _start_ deployment within that timeframe.
> It does not mandate that ones _entire_ network be IPv6 compatible or capable.
>
> Can you run an IPv6 to IPv4 gateway, to one room-full of servers?
> With IPv6 connectivity to one or more peers?
>   

Your proposal requires I deploy an amount of IPv6 space "equivalent" to 
my IPv4 allocation before I can get more IPv4 space.  I can't/shouldn't 
do that with a gateway or a room full of servers, and I don't think I 
should be dual-stacking routers that don't support IPv6 in hardware.

In any event, we already have an IPv6 /32, so we don't need any more 
IPv6 space.  I think an approach like "Soft Landing" is a much more 
reasonable way to tie IPv6 adoption to the allocation of the last IPv4 
prefixes, and I would recommend you re-read and comment on that policy 
proposal rather than proposing something along these lines.

-Scott