[ppml] Soliciting comments: IPv4 to IPv6 fast migration

[Peter A Eisch]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> Peter A Eisch wrote:
> >
> > As with my situation: I'm legacy, multi-homed /24 and I don't need/want
> > anymore IPv4 space.  I can't get an IPv6 assignment from ARIN under the
> > current policy.  (I've tried and been rejected.)  This further disincents
> > not just me but likely others to even consider IPv6.
> >
> > ...but maybe that's by design.
> >
> > I guess it's time to unfold the hosted domains onto discreet subnets to
> > generate a synthetic need for more IPv4 and play the game by the rules.
>
> Now *that* we definitely don't want.  :-)
>
> What do you think of the policy proposal I just outlined?  Would that be
> a viable path forward for you?  I'd appreciate your input, preferably
> publicly.
>

If you mean this excerpt:

> Ah, ok.  I wouldn't mind rephrasing that portion of 6.5.8.1 to read
> "qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4
> policy currently in effect, or have qualified for, received, and
> continue to efficiently utilize an IPv4 assignment or allocation from
> ARIN."

Yes, I think so.  The "effeciently utilize" phrase causes a little
concern.  I try to extensively use NAT and high application density in
their hosting environment and then uses their legacy space sparingly with
as much PAT/NAT as possible could look inefficient by policy.  (Maybe I'm
paranoid about others nosing around.)

In the end I think it might prove to be a reasonable carrot but still
leave room for the stick to come later.  At least you can likely get
low-hanging fruit like me on-board with allowing us to get into IPv6
(grass-roots-like).

peter