[arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

[David Farmer]

I'm sure you have heard of the proverb, ”you can lead a horse to water, but
you can’t make him drink.” It seems to me that you are trying to force the
horses to drink the IPv6 water.

The US Government tried to force it's departments to do IPv6 most of them
did it, but many promptly turned it off after passing the tests.

You can try to force people to deploy IPv6 to get more IPv4, but many of
them won't use it and will promptly turn it off after they have the IPv4
they are looking for.  It seems illogical, but it has and will happen
again.

Let's try to understand the meaning of the proverb, and not try to prove it
over and over again.

Thanks.

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 14:07 <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:

> There has been quite a bit of discussion of the proposals to eliminate the
> wait list by sending freed space to the 4.4 and 4.10 space, and
> eliminating the waiting list.  I have generally been in favor of this
> since 4.10 space has a requirement to have/use IPv6 which I think is
> something that we should consider.
>
> I have been thinking about submitting a proposal to for the first time
> adopt a requirement that anyone receiving 8.5 specified transfers at a
> minimum have an allocation of IPv6 space. Eventually, I would like to go
> farther such as a requirement to actually route and use the IPv6
> allocation before being able to receive 8.5 specified transfers.
>
> The IPv4 /8 pool became empty in 2011, and ARIN has been on empty other
> than 4.4. and 4.10 space.  While the wait list has served many at ARIN, it
> appears that the bulk of the marketplace of IPv4 space is being handled
> under the 8.5 specified transfer process.
>
> I think it is long overdue to start considering an IPv6 requirement on
> these transfers.  Looking at the NRPM, this is what I think would be a
> good proposal:
>
> Current 8.5.2:
>
> ARIN allocates or assigns number resources to organizations via transfer
> solely for the purpose of use on an operational network.
>
> To this I would add, depending on the strength of the statement desired:
>
> An operational network for the purposes of receiving IPv4 resources under
> 8.5 must include having an ARIN IPv6 allocation or assignment [and
> advertising and using it on the Internet].
>
> We could simply start by making sure they have IPv6 space before allowing
> 8.5 transfers. Later we might consider having to show they are actually
> advertising and using the block before allowing the 8.5 transfers.
>
> What does everyone think.  Is this the right time or not, and what reasons
> do you base this opinion on?
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190827/e1755d51/attachment.htm>