[ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6

[Scott Leibrand]

Craig and Robert,

Have you deployed IPv6 across your network yet?  If not, could you do so 
within 6 months?  An IPv4 allocation is usually sized for 6 months of 
growth, so this proposal would require all growing IP networks to deploy 
IPv6 within 6 months, instead of allowing them to do so over the next 
few years (between now and when they can no longer grow with IPv4).  I 
don't know about you, but such a mandate would significantly increase 
our cost of deploying IPv6, for no real benefit.

-Scott

Craig Finseth wrote:
> This is one of the more intelligent proposals that I have seen on this
> list lately...
>
>    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 --
> 	...
>    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_.
> 	...
>
> Craig A. Finseth                craig.finseth at state.mn.us
> Systems Architect               +1 651 201 1011 desk
> State of Minnesota, Office of Enterprise Technology
> 658 Cedar Ave                   +1 651 297 5368 fax
> St Paul MN 55155                +1 651 297 1111 NOC, for reporting problems
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>