[ppml] Soliciting comments: IPv4 to IPv6 fast migration

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "William Herrin" <arin-contact at dirtside.com>
> 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:
>
> 1. The looming exhaustion of the IPv4 space.
> 2. Obsolete and incorrect legacy IPv4 registration and contact 
> information.
> 3. Legacy IPv4 registrants don't pay their fair share.
> 4. The need to constrain route announcements in the IPv6 Default-Free 
> Zone.
>
> The current draft of the proposal is at:
>
> http://bill.herrin.us/arin-policy-proposal-6to4.html
>
> Your comments, suggestions and constructive criticism will be greatly
> appreciated.

I don't see how this proposal solves problems 1 or 4 above, though I'll 
grant it may partially solve problems 2 and 3.  I am particularly opposed to 
abusing the 6to4 spec in this way; if a change to 6to4 is desired (i.e. 
leaking routes under 2002::/16 into the DFZ), then the IETF is the proper 
forum to do so, and ARIN should not be considering policy that depends on an 
RFC change until a draft is at least in the RFC Editor's queue.

If the goal is to give PIv6 space to legacy holders -- without meeting the 
existing standard -- in return for subjecting themselves to the RSA and 
maintenance fees, then I feel that the appropriate place to propose such a 
change is in the PIv6 policy itself and that such blocks should be assigned 
from the same superblock that other PIv6 space is assigned from, not from 
2002::/16.

S

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