[ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6

[Robert Bonomi]

I'm sure the following idea has to have occured to better minds than mine,
but I _cannot_ see what the downside to it is --

Given that:
  1) it is policy to 'encourage' migration to IPv6
  2) there is a looming shortage of IPv4 addresses available for assignment
  3) _At_present_ IPv4 address-space *is* viewed by requestors as 'preferable'
     to IPv6 space.
  4) more than 95% of address-space assignments are to entities for which there
     is a reasonable expectation they will be making _additional_ address-
     space requests in the 'not too distant' future.

Proposed:
  A) every IPv4 block assignment includes the assignment of an 'equivalent-
     size'  IPv6 address block ( e.g. assuming '1 IPv4 /32' == '1 IPv6 /64)
  B) _subsequent_ v4 requests must show the required utilization levels of
     *both* the allocated IPv4 *and* IPv6 space.  With "utilization" of IPv6
     space requiring the actual deployment of functional machines in that
     address-space.
  C) As the pool of available IPv4 addresses gets smaller, the ratio of  the
     relative size of the IPv6 allocation vs the IPv4 allocation _increases_.

For 'revenue' purposes, the 'paired' IPv4 and IPv6 allocations are counted
as single block, as long as both are allocated.  IF the requestor _returns_
the IPv4 block, they get a significant discount on the IPv6 space for some 
period of time. (50% off for 5 years, maybe?)


If the 'sliding ratio' described in 'C' is anounced well in advance, there 
is clear self-interest incentive for the larger requestors to start deploying
IPv6 promptly.  It is obviously easier to 'start small' _now_, than to be 
forced into 'massive' deployment at a later date.

If that 'sliding scale' is based on the (total) quantity of IPv4 space 
remaining, not on fixed calendar dates, the incentive to "start now" is
even greater -- one doesn't know 'how high' the price will be "when we
_need_ it" later.  Just that it will be much cheaper -then-, if one does
the groundwork _now_.


 ++++

Another possible 'motivator' for IPv6 migration -- tie the requirements
for getting _additional_ IPv4 space to the ratio of IPv6 vs IPv4 space
that the requestor _already_ has "in verified use".  The less IPv6 space 
they have in use relative to their IPv4 space the *higher* the utilization 
of the IPv4 space they have to show to get any additional IPv4 space.

Again, if this is "scaled" to remaining IPv4 space availability, matters
should be 'self-correcting' due to simple market forces.



An _absolutely_ effective way of driving migration to IPv6 would be to
condition additional IPv4 address-space allocations on the percentage
of IPv6 traffic that transits the boundaries of the requestor's network.
That requires that not only does the requestor deploy IPv6 internally,
but that they _use_ it with external parties as well.  Nobody can argue
the efectiveness of such an approach; however I suspect there are a number
of significant obstacles to actual implementation.


As I said at the top of things, I'm sure things like this have already 
occured to far brighter people than me -- I await, with some trepidation,
being shown  'the **** obvious facts' that I have overlooked, that kill
such an approach. :)