[ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6

[James Hess]

On 7/31/07, Robert Bonomi <bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm sure the following idea has to have occured to better minds than mine,
> but I _cannot_ see what the downside to it is --
>
> Given that:
>   1) it is policy to 'encourage' migration to IPv6
>   2) there is a looming shortage of IPv4 addresses available for
> assignment
>   3) _At_present_ IPv4 address-space *is* viewed by requestors as
> 'preferable'
>      to IPv6 space.
>   4) more than 95% of address-space assignments are to entities for which
> there
>      is a reasonable expectation they will be making _additional_ address-
>      space requests in the 'not too distant' future.


I'm trying to think of ways to simplify the concept...
Why not do the following?

Reserve some IPv4 blocks, possibly including reclaimed blocks, to be
allocated only
to sites that have already received and continue to met a utilization
efficiency criterion
in terms of connected publicly visible hosts for an allocation of IPv6
space.

Ideally I think the reservation be done not just by one RIR, but by all
RIRs, and IANA
practices revised to set aside a good number of /8s of IPv4 addresses as "
reserved for allocation to users transitioning to IPv6".


The reservations would make large blocks unavailable to users that have not
deployed
IPv6, thereby motivating them to deploy IPv6 in order to draw from the
reserved block of
addresses.

It doesn't force anyone to deploy IPv6.  In fact, they might use NAT for the
additional hosts,
rather than get a bigger block of IPv4 space.

It only discourages networks expanding (adding many hosts using public IPs)
without also
obtaining  IPv6  connectivity, to instead obtain IPv6 connectivity at the
best possible time --
while they are already expanding their network.

It creates a miniaturized version of the very same issue that in 4 years
will effect every
network that's going to need to ask someone else for additional IPv4 space
after total
exhaustion of the registry pools.

And while it encourages IPv6, the policy wouldn't "force" it to be adopted
any more than
exhaustion ultimately will.

Essentially, in the name of encouraging a more long-term sustainable
practice, a smaller
"pseudo-exhaustion"  is spawned 1 to 2 years earlier, due to the
reservations.


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
better experience in terms of knowledge of what to expect when IPv4
eventually runs out.

--
-J
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070802/f8f61dff/attachment.htm>