[arin-ppml] Policy to ease transition to IPv6

[Michael K. Smith]

Hello Scott:


On 8/23/08 8:50 PM, "Scott Leibrand" <sleibrand at internap.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
I remember the threads!  I still think there is policy work to be done and,
with that said, I will get to it.

Regards,

Mike