[ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6

[Robert Bonomi]

> From sleibrand at internap.com  Tue Jul 31 18:05:26 2007
> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:05:10 -0700
> From: Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com>
> To: Robert Bonomi <bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com>
> CC: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6
>
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
> >> From sleibrand at internap.com  Tue Jul 31 14:27:24 2007
> >> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:27:09 -0700
> >> From: Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com>
> >> To: craig.finseth at state.mn.us
> >> CC: bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com, ppml at arin.net
> >> Subject: Re: [ppml] Motivating migration to IPv6
> >>
> >> 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).
> >>     
> >
> > Yes, it requires that one _start_ deployment within that timeframe.
> > It does not mandate that ones _entire_ network be IPv6 compatible or capable.
> >
> > Can you run an IPv6 to IPv4 gateway, to one room-full of servers?
> > With IPv6 connectivity to one or more peers?
> >   
>
> Your proposal requires I deploy an amount of IPv6 space "equivalent" to 
> my IPv4 allocation before I can get more IPv4 space.  I can't/shouldn't 
> do that with a gateway or a room full of servers, and I don't think I 
> should be dual-stacking routers that don't support IPv6 in hardware.

Woops!  Mis-understanding.  Not the IPv6 equivalent of ones _entire_ IPv4 
space. Just the equivalent of the IPv4 space received in requests fulfilled 
under the proposed policy.  Requiring near-immediate deployment of something 
equivalent to one's _total_ IPv4 space would be, I agree, "excessive".

If you're growing slowly, the burden is not all that onerous. Approaches as
mentioned above do do the trick.
If you're growing fast, you're buying lots of additional gear; dual-stack
is just one more thing on the RFQ.
> In any event, we already have an IPv6 /32, so we don't need any more 
> IPv6 space.

Good point.  "bright idea" revised to include that if the requesting
organization already has IPv6 space at least equivalent to what would be
the cumulative IPv6 space to have been allocated based on IPv4 space requested
under this proposal, no additional IPv6 space will be allocated, but requestor
will be required to subsequently show appropriate utilization of IPv6 space
of the size that would have been allocated.  (*SHEESH*  there's got to be
a less-convoluted way to say that! :)