[ppml] those pesky users...

Tue Mar 27 18:57:02 EDT 2007

Hi Ted,

This is not up to ARIN, is up to us (including you). I think you should
write down a policy proposal for this and seek the community consensus.

The RIRs only implement what the community decide.

There are also technical implications. Remember that IPv4 and IPv6 are NOT
"compatible". I'm not saying it is impossible, but we can't just translate
IPv4 into IPv6, there are upper layer implications, and that's why NAT/PT is
being deprecated/historic at IETF. It doesn't work very well, same as NAT in
IPv4 only works in certain cases (basically it works fine for client-server
apps, unless you do something in the application to take care of the NAT
implications, which in turn means a huge extra app development cost).

We may consider an automatic tunneling mechanism instead of a translation,
and in fact this is how I see the future. More and more networks which will
become only IPv6 in the core and access (once IPv6 traffic is dominant vs.
IPv4) and keeping dual stack in the edge (LANs), then having the edge
routers encapsulating automatically IPv4 (even behind NAT) in IPv6 for those
old apps that don't do IPv6 or when talking to IPv4 only hosts. This is what
we call softwires, which basically is a new way to use L2TP (already
available in many networks, so not a big deal).

The only missing part is "embedding" the IPv4 address in the IPv6 one. This
could have worked with something such as softwires, but it seems to me that
it is a more expensive transition path for the ISPs, because it means
enforcing a complete network (core/access) transition before being able to
use it.

Instead, the actual softwires definition (not doing the "embedding" part),
allows the ISPs to do incremental transition, or even not do the transition
at all and allow the customers to use IPv6 from the edge. This has been a
main concern in the IETF when developing IPv6: Making sure that the
transition can be done without forcing the ISPs to change their network, and
instead allowing an incremental path, each step at your own pace.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
> Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> Fecha: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:02:47 -0700
> Para: "Howard, W. Lee" <Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com>, "Johnson, Ron"
> <RJohnson at newedgenetworks.com>, <ppml at arin.net>
> Asunto: Re: [ppml] those pesky users...
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>> Howard, W. Lee
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:07 AM
>> To: Johnson, Ron; ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>>> Behalf Of Johnson, Ron
>>> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 1:55 PM
>>> To: ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [ppml] those pesky users...
>>> 
>>> If ARIN were in fact offering an exchange program where we
>>> would receive vastly increased sized IPv6 allocations for a
>>> greatly reduced fee over the IPv4 blocks. A case could be
>>> made on the economics of changing to v6.
>> 
>> How vast?  How great?
>> 
>> http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html
>> 
>> ARIN has been waiving fees for IPv6 allocations for members [1]
>> for several years.  That waiver expires at the end of this year.
>> Fees for IPv6 assignments are all-but-waived, at $500; same
>> expiration.
>> 
>> As an ISP, the minimum allocation you would receive is a /32 [2];
>> as an end-user, the minimum assignment would be a /48 [3].
>> 
>> What more can we do?
>> 
>> Lee
>> 
> 
> Lee, ARIN and the other RIR's need to admit a huge mistake was made
> over the IPv6 allocations and then go forward with correcting it.
> 
> What you should have done was for ALL ipv4 assignments you should have
> AUTOMATICALLY made an IPv6 assignment of a number block.  This would have
> eliminated the silly "fee for IPv4" and "fee for IPv6" different rate
> schedules.  There would only be one fee for "IP addressing" that would
> never go away and never change whether you were using IPv4 or IPv6 or both.
> It would have allowed people that wanted to experiment to just look up their
> IPv6 allocation and start announcing them, without the bother of contacing
> a number authority and going through an allocation scheme.
> 
> For example when the telephone companies switched from 7 digit to 10
> digit dialing in this area, they just told everyone to start dialing the
> area code.  So you immediately knew what both your 7 digit and your 10
> digit telephone number was.
> 
> What the RIRs did was basically equivalent to the telephone company
> announcing that due to the need to go to 10 digit dialing, they were
> going to change every telephone number in the book to something
> completely unlike what the prior number was.
> 
> It is no wonder that there's so little interest in switching over.  What
> ARIN and the other registries did was change the focus on trying to
> propagandize people into requesting IPv6 allocations, instead of where
> it should be - telling every single organization that has IPv4 that
> Bang, you automatically have IPv6, and then propagandizing people into
> USING the IPv6 allocations.
> 
> NOTE (substitute "marketing" "encouraging" "advertising" or your preferred
> politically correct synonym in place of "propagandizing", same difference)
> 
> The best thing going forward would be for ARIN and the other RIR's to
> drop the IPv4 and IPv6 fee schedules (the wavier is a joke anyway, what
> is the point of an IPv6 fee schedule with a fee of $0) and replace it
> with a single IP allocation fee schedule that applies to both kinds of
> numbering, then for all current IPv4 holders that the numbering authorities
> have assigned numbering for, just go ahead and assign IPv6 allocations
> at a 1 to 1 ratio.  (for every single IPv4 address you get an IPv6 address)
> It's not like there's any shortage of IPv6.
> 
> You could probably do that in a year.
> 
> Then what you do is get rid of the separate IPv4 and IPv6 numbering requests
> and replace them with a single numbering request that is used for both IPv4
> and IPv6.  Then just adjust the justification requirements so that IPv6
> hardly has any, and IPv4 has harder requirements - that way, organizations
> that only need IPv6 will just leave the IPv4 justification requirements
> blank, and only get IPv6.
> 
> Ted
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.