[ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6

Stephen Sprunk stephen at sprunk.org
Thu Aug 2 18:55:55 EDT 2007

Thus spake "Robert Bonomi" <bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com>
> Proposed:
>  A) every IPv4 block assignment includes the assignment of an
> 'equivalent-size'  IPv6 address block ( e.g. assuming '1 IPv4 /32'
> == '1 IPv6 /64)

I'm against this, for the same reason I'm against it when Ted proposed it a 
while back: a responsible steward does not give people resources that they 
haven't asked for (among others).

Also, there's no "equivalent" sizes between v4 and v6.  Ignoring the above 
complaint, I think it would be sufficient to say that ARIN would issue a 
minimum-sized v6 block (based on the applicant's type) on the next request 
for a v4 block.  Few folks should ever exceed the current minima in v6 land.

>  B) _subsequent_ v4 requests must show the required utilization
>     levels of *both* the allocated IPv4 *and* IPv6 space.  With
>     "utilization" of IPv6 space requiring the actual deployment of
>     functional machines in that address-space.

That's interesting; the problem is that utilization in v6 is a rather 
meaningless term, particularly for folks who have (oversized) minimum 
blocks.  Many ISPs will _never_ get "acceptable" utilization of their /32; 
ditto for end-users and their /48s.

>  C) As the pool of available IPv4 addresses gets smaller, the
>     ratio of  the relative size of the IPv6 allocation vs the IPv4
>     allocation _increases_.


> For 'revenue' purposes, the 'paired' IPv4 and IPv6 allocations are
> counted as single block, as long as both are allocated.  IF the
> requestor _returns_ the IPv4 block, they get a significant discount
> on the IPv6 space for some period of time. (50% off for 5 years,
> maybe?)

That effectively means that we're cutting rates in half for both types for 
the next five years.

My proposal that orgs pay either their v4 fees or v6 fees, whichever is 
more, has the same long-term effect without the unintended consequences.

> Another possible 'motivator' for IPv6 migration -- tie the
> requirements for getting _additional_ IPv4 space to the ratio of
> IPv6 vs IPv4 space that the requestor _already_ has "in verified
> use".  The less IPv6 space they have in use relative to their
> IPv4 space the *higher* the utilization of the IPv4 space they
> have to show to get any additional IPv4 space.

I like the general direction of this, but I'd prefer it be simpler; even 
just the number of hosts that have v4 and/or v6 addresses assigned would be 
a useful measure, if not perfect.

I also think that the first step should be less drastic, like requiring 
everyone to submit a detailed v6 migration plan with their first v4 request 
after date X, and a status update with each additional v4 request.  ARIN 
could collect a lot of data that would help with its educational efforts.


Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov 

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list