[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: Last Call

[Owen DeLong]

>
Speaking only as myself and not on behalf of the AC...

>> Rationale:
>>
>> Current policy allows direct IPv6 allocations and assignments to
>> nearly
>> all organizations with IPv4 allocations or assignments from ARIN.  
>> As a
>> result, such organizations can get IPv6 space just as easily as
>> they can
>> get IPv4 space, making it easy for them to transition to IPv6 as
>> soon as
>> they're ready to do so. However, there are some organizations who
>> received IPv4 /23's and /24's prior to the formation of ARIN, and use
>> that space in a multihomed, provider-independent fashion. Under
>> current
>> policy, such organizations cannot get IPv6 PI space without
>> artificially
>> inflating host counts, and are therefore discouraged from adopting
>> IPv6.
>
> Can you point to where in the current policy one would likely
> have to inflate host counts to be eligible for IPv6 PI space?
>
If you have, for example, a legitimate legacy /24 and do not
have ~510 hosts, you do not technically qualify for an IPv4 /22
new issue, and, therefore would not meet the current policy test
to obtain IPv6 for your site.

>> This policy proposal aims to remove this disincentive, and allow such
>> organizations to easily adopt IPv6.
>
> And by "easily", you mean renumbering current IPv4
> resources in order to be eligible for IPv6 resources?
>
Nope... Simply easily obtaining an IPv6 assignment to overlay
in dual-stack fashion on your IPv4 network to continue business
as usual and effect the transition accordingly.

>>
>
> Why should historical IPv4 assignments hold up deployment of IPv6?
>
People who have them and have the ability to independently multihome
with their IPv4 assignments, but, cannot get IPv6 assignments on the
same terms are unlikely to be willing to implement IPv6 on their
networks as a result. This is a not insignificant portion of networks
in North America.

>> The
>> intent is that any organization with an assignment of /23 or larger
>> which is less than 50% utilized would renumber and return whole  
>> unused
>> CIDR blocks as necessary to bring the remaining CIDR block to 50%
>> utilization or higher.
>
> So you want people to renumber their historical IPv4 assignments
> before being allowed to get IPv6 assignments?  Will this really
> help v6 get deployed?
>
We want them to return large chunks of unused space, yes, but, the
reality is that most of the beneficiaries of this proposal would not
have to do that, and, would simply get the IPv6 space they need.

In the few cases where people have sparsely populated IPv4
space, the intent is to let them select the contiguous portion
of that space which they wish to occupy and return the other
contiguous portion(s) to ARIN to bring them in line with current
utilization density requirements.  For example, a site with
150 hosts in 16 class C network ranges would be expected
to pick one class C to keep, renumber the hosts they had to
into that range, and, return the others in order to be able to
demonstrate "efficient utilization".

I hope that clarifies the situation.

Owen