[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: Last Call

[Scott Leibrand]

Dale W. Carder wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> Agreed, but if you want "the same terms", shouldn't
> we take out the requirement for a legacy RSA to be in
> place?

Of course, no one will be getting IPv6 terms under the same terms they 
got IPv4 space for pre-ARIN.  The main consideration for the legacy RSA 
was that if someone wants to use IPv4 resources as a justification for 
getting IPv6 space, the IPv4 space needs to be covered by some sort of 
legal agreement.  The legacy RSA accomplishes that, while preserving 
nearly all of the legacy holder's rights to the IPv4 space.

>> 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 would think that it is a waste of time for anyone
> involved to do any sort of minor IPv4 reclamation and
> further inhibit the world's v6 rollout because of it.

Perhaps, but it's really more of a fairness thing.  If you have legacy 
space that's not fully utilized, and you'd like special treatment in 
receiving IPv6 space, then ARIN can ask you to trade in your unused IPv4 
space in exchange.

> Maybe I'm thinking too much along the lines of "Have an
> AS?  Here's your /48".

That's another valid approach.  You could bring it up at the Open Policy 
Hour, or discuss it here on PPML, and see if there's support for a 
policy proposal to do so.

-Scott