[ppml] Soliciting comments: IPv4 to IPv6 fast migration

[William Herrin]

On 7/25/07, Stephen Sprunk <stephen at sprunk.org> wrote:
> Thus spake "William Herrin" <arin-contact at dirtside.com>
> > 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.
> > http://bill.herrin.us/arin-policy-proposal-6to4.html
>
> 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.

Hi Stephen,

  The only solution I've heard proposed to problem #1 which isn't
ridiculous is to deploy IPv6. This proposal forwards that goal by
offering any IPv4 registrant willing to deploy IPv6 now the ability to
get more IPv6 addresses now than they will qualify for later within
the scope of a mechanism that allows them to deploy IPv6 themselves
even if their service provider isn't ready yet. This takes a group of
folks, IPv4 registrants who don't qualify for IPv6 PI space or just
aren't paying attention, folks who are now either on the fence or
actively hostile to IPv6 deployment and converts them enthusiastic
advocates.

  For problem 4, I've had it drilled in to my head that IPv6 PI space
is a Really Bad Thing because it consumes routing slots in DFZ for
small organizations of which there are too many. I have mixed emotions
about that claim but I respect that a substantial number of
intelligent folks consider it very important. This proposal improves
that situation by allowing the inevitable PI space to piggy-back on
the existing IPv4 routing table through what could reasonably be
described as an MPLS-like tagging process. By doing so, it avoids
polluting the IPv6 DFZ.


> 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.

That's not the goal. The goal is to ubiquitously deploy IPv6 in the
next 24 months. For a variety of reasons, that goal is impaired by
passive hostility from small operators. This proposal forwards the
goal by converting at least some and hopefully a lot of that hostility
into productive enthusiasm. Its about using the carrot to lead folks
to a helpfully fast deployment of IPv6.

And if we can knock out a couple other birds with the same stone, so
much the better.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin                  herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr.                        Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004