[ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 31, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:

>
> 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)

Those are not equvalant.  1 IPv4 /32 == 1 host.  1 IPv6 /64 == somewhere
between 2 and 2^64 hosts. (Technically, I suppose you could put the  
router
on a /64 by itself, but, that wouldn't be particularly useful in most  
circumstances)

Additionally, as I have repeatedly stated on this list and in other  
forums, I
do not believe there is benefit to the automatic issuance of v6  
addresses
to parties that have not requested them.  I'm all for making it easy  
to get
v6 if you want it, but, force-feeding people IPv6 addresses whether they
want them or not is not of benefit to the recipients or the community in
general.

>   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.

I'm not entirely opposed to this, but, I don't think we could throw  
that switch
right now without causing substantially more pain than is desirable.   
I would
not oppose a policy that created some form of ramp towards this.

>   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_.
>
Tying these two things together is absurd.

> 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?)
>
I see no reason to encourage the return of the IPv4 block or discourage
people from dual-stacking.  In fact, I can think of a number of  
reasons this
would not be the desired behavior to encourage.

Owen