[ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6

[Paul Vixie]

James, thanks for this, I am very intrigued with the good effects it could
have and the bad side effects it should not have, compared to other policy
proposals now under consideration.  I hope that you will do further work on
it (see http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html for details) so that it can be
formally considered by the community.  --Paul

re:

> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:52:52 -0500
> From: "James Hess" <mysidia at gmail.com>
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6
> Sender: ppml-bounces at arin.net
> 
> ...  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