[arin-ppml] Policy to ease transition to IPv6

[Scott Leibrand]

Michael K. Smith wrote:
>> What can we do to ease the transition to IPv6?
> 
> 2) Remove associations between IPv4 and IPv6 allocations in the NRPM 6.5.8
> so that IPv6 allocations are based solely upon their own merit.

Currently, IPv6 policy for allocation of /48's to end-user orgs includes 
current IPv4 policy by reference, which avoids duplicating all the current 
text and requirements.  In formulating the policy proposal that led to the 
addition of 6.5.8 to the NRPM, it's worth noting that there was *a lot* of 
discussion about host counts, subnet counts, and many other arcane 
details, so in the end we went with the consensus position of "if you 
qualify for IPv4, then you qualify for IPv6 too."

Would you be interested in formulating a policy proposal that removes that 
reference and replaces it with similar requirements, as is done for LIRs 
in 6.5.1.1?

> 3) Provide a mechanism for legacy holders to obtain IPv6 space without
> having to make any modifications to their existing legacy allocation.

Current policy allows legacy holders to obtain IPv6 space without 
reference or modification to their existing legacy address holdings.  They 
simply apply as a new applicant, under the same set of rules as a new 
business who doesn't have or need any IPv4 space from ARIN.

In addition, a clause was recently added to 6.5.8.1 that allows legacy 
holders who *don't* qualify as a new LIR or end-user applicant to get IPv6 
space, by demonstrating efficient use of their current address holdings 
and bringing them under RSA or LRSA.  Use of that route is entirely 
optional, however: any legacy holder with enough hosts to qualify for a 
singly-homed /20 or a multi-homed /22, or is an LIR with a plan for 200 
customers, can simply get IPv6 space directly as a new applicant.

Given the above, do you still see any need for policy work in this space?

Thanks,
Scott