[ppml] PPML Digest, Vol 22, Issue 9

Stephen J. Mahler mahler at louisiana.edu
Thu Apr 5 08:05:24 EDT 2007


Thank you for your comments.  I believe that it doesn't matter if they have
signed an RIR RSA.  Here is why ...

The IPV4 address space represents  1/(2^96)th  of the IPV6 address space.
Yet it holds the most important people in the world.  These are the people
that need to be convinced to switch to IPV6.  Even if you give each owner a
larger segment as described below they represent  1/(2^88)th  of the new
address space.

Give it away (pay exactly what your last years payment was) to anyone that
has an IPV4 as of July 4th, 2007.  All allocations after that date are only
issued as dual assignments (one request gets some IPV4 and IPV6) with all
the paperwork that a papershuffler would dream of having.

Lose the tiny address space income to make the change over.  If someone says
they can't operate without that income, well then we really don't need
change to the IPV6 address space.  Sacrificing 1/(2^88) of possible income
isn't a big deal.

The big deal is making the current owners interested in doing the work to
make the change.  Just make it worth their while.


> >Throwing caution to the wind, and becoming involved in this
> discussion ...
> >
> >I suggest that the problem is not getting people out of the IPV4 address
> >space,  the problem is getting them into the IPv6 space.  If
> moving to IPV6
> >is easy, interesting, has a clear benefit, and worked as more of a
> >long term
> >project than a flash cut... they will move.
> >
> >The existing IPV4 address space is a tiny fraction of the IPV6 space.
> >Follow the lead of Madison Ave. ... give away samples.  GIVE
> each existing
> >address space owner (OK, not really the owner) an upsized chunk
> of the new
> >space.  Let the computers handle the application for the space, just copy
> >the registration information.  Each IPV4 Class C is given a
> range equal in
> >size to a IPV4 class B.   Each Class B is given a range equal to
> a current
> >Class A.  Each Class A is given a SUPER-A.
> >
> I already suggested this last week and we had some discussion on it.  The
> biggest problem is that there's large swaths of IPv4 that was assigned
> pre-RIR and the holders never signed an RSA.  This kind of creates a
> catch-22
> situation; we need to move to IPv6 because large amounts of IPv4 was
> assigned to legacy holders who we can't tell if they are wasting it
> or not (but, compare the list to assigned addressing to what is in the BGP
> table to get some idea) but the legacy
> holders, having not signed an RSA, are not subject to utilization
> requirements that would help prevent them from wasting it.
> The key is to force the legacy holders to sign RSAs.  To do that we have
> to make them come out of the woodwork and sign IPv6 allocation requests
> that commit them to an RSA.  This is why they would never go for an
> auto-allocation scheme.  Sure, we can auto-assign IPv6 but in
> order for them
> to
> use it they would have to sign an RSA for their existing IPv4 assignments
> in order to get the IPv6 that is auto-assigned.
> Consider ARIN's fee schedule.  Above a /14 is $18,000.00 USD a year.  Why
> would a legacy /8 holder who is currently paying ARIN not a cent, because
> they
> have not signed an RSA, want to sign an RSA to get auto-allocated IPv6
> for free so they can start paying $18,000 a year for their /8 and be
> subject to utilization requirements as well?
> A legacy holder of a /8 IPv4 that wants IPv6 would be better off simply
> registering IPv6 by itself and paying much less money.  In fact, that is
> one of the loopholes I would like to see closed in ARIN's policy.
> A pre-RIR /8 holder who didn't sign an RSA for the /8 could I believe
> go to ARIN and pay the yearly membership fee of $500 and then the minimum
> $500 under the fee wavier and get all the IPv6 they wanted.  Of
> course they
> would be subject to an RSA for the IPv6 but according to the published
> policies I think they would only be required to demonstrate 80%
> utilization on their existing /8.  In that case it would be $17,000
> cheaper per year for them to NOT participate in an IPv6 auto-allocation
> program.
> >Make this the last time you have to worry about your existing
> address space
> >between now and your retirement.  Make the advantage of switching to IPV6
> >that you have room to operate and test for years to come.  Make
> it a reason
> >to work thru the headaches of using IPV6.
> >
> I think an auto-allocation scheme would work for IPv4 holders who are
> paying ARIN now.  What I would like to see is the separate fee schedules
> for IPv4 and IPv6 to disappear and there to be only a single fee schedule
> and both IPv4 and an equivalent amount of IPv6 be allocated on each
> request - in other words, an IPv4 holder would no longer pay 1 fee for
> IPv4 and 1 fee for IPv6, then would pay a single fee for "Amount of IP
> addressing" they are using.
> >You won't have to worry about closing down IPV4 if there are
> advantages to
> >moving to IPV6.  If the only advantage to switching to IPV6 is
> that IPV4 is
> >closing down tomorrow, everyone will wait till the day before.
> >
> Then everyone will wait till the day before, because right now there is no
> "killer app" that is an advantage to switch to IPv6.
> Ted

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list