On 7/31/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Robert Bonomi</b> <<a href="mailto:bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com">bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>I'm sure the following idea has to have occured to better minds than mine,<br>but I _cannot_ see what the downside to it is --<br><br>Given that:<br> 1) it is policy to 'encourage' migration to IPv6<br> 2) there is a looming shortage of IPv4 addresses available for assignment
<br> 3) _At_present_ IPv4 address-space *is* viewed by requestors as 'preferable'<br> to IPv6 space.<br> 4) more than 95% of address-space assignments are to entities for which there<br> is a reasonable expectation they will be making _additional_ address-
<br> space requests in the 'not too distant' future.</blockquote><div><br>I'm trying to think of ways to simplify the concept...<br>Why not do the following?<br><br>Reserve some IPv4 blocks, possibly including reclaimed blocks, to be allocated only
<br>to sites that have already received and continue to met a utilization efficiency criterion<br>in terms of connected publicly visible hosts for an allocation of IPv6 space.<br><br>Ideally I think the reservation be done not just by one RIR, but by all RIRs, and IANA
<br>practices revised to set aside a good number of /8s of IPv4 addresses as "<br>reserved for allocation to users transitioning to IPv6".<br><br><br>The reservations would make large blocks unavailable to users that have not deployed
<br>IPv6, thereby motivating them to deploy IPv6 in order to draw from the reserved block of <br>addresses.<br><br>It doesn't force anyone to deploy IPv6. In fact, they might use NAT for the additional hosts,<br>rather than get a bigger block of IPv4 space.
<br><br>It only discourages networks expanding (adding many hosts using public IPs) without also<br>obtaining IPv6 connectivity, to instead obtain IPv6 connectivity at the best possible time --<br>while they are already expanding their network.
<br><br>It creates a miniaturized version of the very same issue that in 4 years will effect every<br>network that's going to need to ask someone else for additional IPv4 space after total<br>exhaustion of the registry pools.
<br><br>And while it encourages IPv6, the policy wouldn't "force" it to be adopted any more than<br>exhaustion ultimately will.<br><br>Essentially, in the name of encouraging a more long-term sustainable practice, a smaller
<br>"pseudo-exhaustion" is spawned 1 to 2 years earlier, due to the reservations.<br><br><br>I assume that promotes greater stability than just a right out exhaustion, as rapidly expanding networks will have adopted IPv6, and experience with the pseudo-exhaustion will give people
<br>better experience in terms of knowledge of what to expect when IPv4 eventually runs out.<br><br></div></div>--<br>-J<br>