[ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6
sleibrand at internap.com
Fri Aug 3 18:17:42 EDT 2007
In order to submit this as a formal policy proposal, we'll need to work
out what would be considered an acceptable utilization efficiency
criterion (or criteria, as it may be different for allocations than for
One possibility would be that, for each assignment or allocation out of
the reserved pool, an equivalent number of hosts must have IPv6
connectivity available. So for example, if an end-user requests an
additional /22 assignment and presents a justification of 1000 new
hosts, they could demonstrate that they have assigned and routed IPv6
addresses to 1000 hosts. (If they have less than a /22 of existing IPv4
space, say a /23, they could perhaps instead demonstrate IPv6 rollout
half as many hosts as have IPv4 connectivity.) Similarly, if an ISP
requests an additional /20 allocation, they could demonstrate they have
assigned and routed IPv6 subnets to customers representing a /20 worth
of IP space.
Paul Vixie wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
More information about the ARIN-PPML