[ppml] Soliciting comments: IPv4 to IPv6 fast migration

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:28 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> Following your comments and some helpful off-list discussion, I've
> prepared a replacement for last month's "IPv4 to IPv6 Migration
> Incentive Address Space" proposal. With some mild tweaks to the
> existing 6to4 protocol, it seeks to address four problems ARIN faces:
>
First, I don't completely accept your premise...

> 1. The looming exhaustion of the IPv4 space.

This isn't a problem.  It's just a fact.  There is a finite amount of  
IPv4 space
available, and, when it is all allocated, it will be impossible to  
allocate more
without reclamation.  No problem.

There are a number of problems which are derivatives of this fact,  
but, this
fact, in and of itself is not a problem.  I say this, not to pick  
nits, but, because
it is important that we target solutions at the actual problem rather  
than at
some meta-issue related to the problem.

> 2. Obsolete and incorrect legacy IPv4 registration and contact  
> information.

This is a problem, but, I don't really think it is necessarily  
related to the
IPv6 migration problem except to the extent that legacy holders moving
off IPv4 space will (absent your proposal) inherently resolve the issue
by deprecating said IPv4 space.

> 3. Legacy IPv4 registrants don't pay their fair share.

Here, I strongly disagree with your premise.  First, Legacy IPv4  
registrants
don't have a "fair share" to pay.  They got into the system before  
there were
fees.  Attempts by some random organization to extort money from them  
(to
their perspective, ARIN is just some random organization) are not  
likely to
be taken seriously.

The continued registration by ARIN of these blocks and maintenance of
their whois and in-addr records is of far more benefit to the community
at large than it is to the legacy holders.  As such, ARIN continues  
to provide
this service on a status quo basis (as agreed at ARIN's inception, btw)
to serve the ARIN community.  The fact that the legacy holders also  
benefit
is a happy coincidence, not a direct goal.

> 4. The need to constrain route announcements in the IPv6 Default- 
> Free Zone.
>
ARIN has no role in this.  In IPv4, because of the need to balance  
the tradeoffs
between aggregation and free-pool exhaustion, it was necessary to place
portions of both roles in ARIN purview.  In IPv6, there is no reason  
for ARIN to
retain a role in routing table maintenance.  This role should be  
pushed back
to the ISPs where it belongs.  Let those who own routers manage routers.
Let ARIN manage address space.

> The current draft of the proposal is at:
>
> http://bill.herrin.us/arin-policy-proposal-6to4.html
>
I'll read it and comment on the proposal separately, but, I wanted to  
take
this opportunity to first comment on the paradigm framing the proposal
since I think it is so far off the mark.

Owen