[ppml] Solicing comments: IPv4 to IPv6 Migration Incentive Address Space

[Owen DeLong]

In response to your email:

Preemptively assigning space is a horribly bad idea.  People who want  
space
should apply for it and I would welcome proposals that make that  
process easier,
especially for existing IPv4 holders.  However, I will _NOT_ support  
any policy
which proposes automatically creating unused assignments.  It's just  
not a good
idea.

1.	This isn't a problem, just the next step in the evolution of the  
internet.
	It's not like IPv4 stops working when we run out of free space, we just
	stop being able to easily add more networks.

2.	This is a problem, but, ARIN policy alone will never address it.  The
	real solution is to simply allow it to die its natural death when IPv4
	goes away as a result of overwhelming migration to IPv6.  This will
	take several years, but, so would any meaningful solution to this
	stated problem, so, I think our efforts are best focused on proper and
	thorough IPv6 deployment instead.

3.	This is a Red Herring and should be dropped. The reality is that most
	legacy IPv4 registrants are end-users.  Do you really think that  
collecting
	$100/year from each of them is vital to ARIN or meaningful to the
	community?  ARIN has no business relationship with these people
	and no standing to force them into one.

In response to your actual policy proposal:

I would vote NEA.

First paragraph and table:
	This is just a bad idea altogether as stated above.  This alone
	is enough to force a NEA vote from me.

	If you want to change this to ARIN shall upon request issue the  
following
	assignments to existing ARIN IPv4 recipients and/or legacy address  
space
	holders in the ARIN region:

		IPv4 total holdings			IPv6 prefix received
		/22-/32						/48 or /64 at requester's discretion
		/8-/22						/32
		/1-/8						Appropriate space determined by ARIN staff

	Since no single body has more than 1/2 the total IPv4 space, I don't  
believe a
	criteria for /0 is necessary.

	Your original table shows a fundamental misunderstanding of IPv6 prefix
	sizes.  The intent and design of IPv6 (for better or worse) is that  
a single
	network is always a /64.  An organization with more than one network
	gets at least a /48.  An LIR which is issuing prefixes to other  
organizations
	recieves a /32 (essentially any ISP).

Now for your numbered proposal paragraphs:

1.	Again, bad idea... See above.

2.	Bad idea... See above.

3.	Bad idea... See above.
	Very bad idea... Giving additional space to legacy holders without
	contacting them and verifying that they even still exist is just plain
	dumb.  Why bring the mistakes made in the early v4 days forward
	into IPv6?

4.	There's no reason whatsoever to tie these things together and
	produce an automatic map.  The RIRs are perfectly capable of
	issuing appropriate blocks in response to applications submitted
	by the existing address holders. There is no benefit to defining
	this "migration space" and pushing it off into some random
	portion of the IPv6 space that gets split up all over the globe
	instead of having these allocations come from the appropriate
	RIR blocks to begin with.



Owen

On Jun 26, 2007, at 1:03 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> I've prepared a policy proposal I hope to submit to ARIN entitled
> "IPv4 to IPv6 Migration Incentive Address Space." Through preemptively
> assigning IPv6 addresses to IPv4 holders, it seeks to address three
> problems ARIN faces:
>
> 1. The looming exhaustion of the IPv4 space.
> 2. Obsolete and incorrect legacy IPv4 registration and contact  
> information.
> 3. Legacy IPv4 registrants don't pay their fair share.
>
> The current draft of the proposal is at:
>
> http://bill.herrin.us/arin-policy-proposal.html
>
> If you're willing, please read through it. I'd very much like to hear:
> a. Would you vote Yea or Nay? and b. How would you improve the
> proposal?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Bill Herrin
>
> Note: Resent with from address that's actually subscribed to ppml. If
> the prior one slips through, my apologies for sending it twice.
>
> -- 
> William D. Herrin                  herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr.                        Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> 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