[arin-discuss] IPv6 Why as justification for IPv4?

[Tim St. Pierre]

Hi Drake,

I think I can explain this a little - and I appreciate the sideways
compliment.

As much as I would rather run a v6 only network, I can't yet because
everyone else is still stuck in IPv4 land.  It was pretty easy for me to
get an IPv6 allocation to use to build my network, but I still can't get
an IPv4 allocation.

I believe the spirit of the nrpm policy is "prove to use you have a real
customer base before we give you a meaningful address allocation".  I
can't meet the /23 requirement because I can't get a /23, so I'm
suggesting that I be able to prove my customer base by making IPv6
assignments.

I need IPv4 space to support my dual-stack customers that are all behind
NAT, but should really have a proper IPv4 assignment.  I'm arguing that
by demonstrating an IPv6 deployment, it shows me as worthy to be
allocated scarce IPv4 resources to the same network.

If I could just fill out some forms and get a /22 from the get-go, then
this wouldn't be an issue at all.

Hope that makes sense.

-Tim

On 13-04-15 08:19 PM, Drake Pallister wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I don't get this twist on V6 holdings as justification for getting V4
> allocations.
>
> We were in a world of V4 which had to transition to something new
> because V4 (that would never run out, as thought 15 years ago) so we
> came up with V6.
>
> If there are some creative intelligent people who built an
> infrastructure of all V6, I am amazed. They are Genius with a capital
> G because I am in awe of your doings.
>
> But please tell me why that should be used as a criteria for
> dispersion of V4 IP numbers.
>
> As more and more Genius providers connect more and more V6 customer
> base, then the need for V4 should decrease drastically.
>
> I don't see the logic. Is it a reward for making use of V6?  Are we
> new suddenly rolling in newly unused V4 now because V6 is in such
> widespread use?
>
> Time for an analogy?   If I go into a tavern and can successfully
> consume.... Well, Nope that analogy goes nowhere.
>
> The summary of my thought pattern is straight forward.  If you need or
> want V6, you requisition for V6. If you need or want V4, you
> requisition for V4.
>
> In the end, I was to believe a strive for a transition over to V6 with
> backward compatibility for the tiny quantity of V4 still in use.
>
> Drake
> -- Tim St. Pierre System Operator Communicate Freely 289 225 1220
> x5101 tim at communicatefreely.net www.communicatefreely.net