[arin-ppml] Linking IPv4 allocations to IPv6

[Chris Grundemann]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:46 AM, heather skanks
<heather.skanks at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think that there could be some compromise reached between forcing
>> every node on someones network to be dual stacked and just giving out
>> ipv6 space to everyone with no requirement for use.
>>
>> Maybe (as you suggest) ARIN should give out a /32 (or other block) to
>> every AS, no questions asked.  Then, based on the knowledge that they
>> have the v6 space, you build some requirements for requesting more v4
>> space.  I think most will agree that requiring every host to be dual
>> stacked would both provide the most benefit and also be virtually
>> impossible to enforce.  Maybe instead, the requirement should be
>> simply advertising the v6 block.
>
> Are you suggesting give out /32 PI to every AS?
>
> If so:
>  Please don't add 40-50k routes to the global internet routing table if
> people aren't actually using them.
>  You might want to make a clarification that you verify that the ASN is
> still in use and the organization actually wants PI vs PA - before assigning
> it a /32.

Very good points.  I personally would love it if all IPv6 space was
PA, to help prevent the problems we are facing now with IPv4 route
'de-aggregation.'  Unfortunately to speed/ease adoption I have
accepted that this will not be the case.  I would definitely support
some sort of quick audit process to verify ASN activity and access to
PA space.
>
> If doing this through PA is also acceptable - you'd have to give larger
> allocations to ISP's.  Their actually are some organizations that do not
> want to obtain and maintain their own IP space.

Agreed.
>
>> This would require the organization
>> to get some sort of ipv6 transit service and would thus encourage them
>> to actually utilize it.
>
> No it would encourage them to route it - which is not the same as using it.

It would /require/ them to route it (if they want more space), which
is an (possibly slight) encouragement to use it.  Say you are an
enterprise with no available IPv4 space and a routed block of IPv6.
Do you go though the process to obtain more IPv4 space or just start
utilizing the IPv6 space?  If you are announcing it already, you have
at least one dual-stacked router and you have IPv6 access of some
sort.  Add that if a transfer policy is in place, you may have to pay
for the IPv4...
>
>>
>> It would also help push the demand for v6
>> transit.  Another possible requirement is that the organizations
>> public website have a AAAA record from the previously assigned /32 (or
>> whatever size block).  I think that these two requirements are easily
>> measurable and would noticeably affect ipv6 adoption rates.
>
> This last idea, is not *so* bad ..in that it gives you a means to measure -
> and is along the lines of the 'demonstrate you are making some effort with
> v6' requirement that's been suggested.  However it pushes enforcement to the
> part of the cycle when they come back for IP's.
>
> Some considerations..
>
> I ask for IPv4
> I get IPv4 + IPv6 and get told to put our public website on IPv6 as well
> I come back for more IPv4 - and then what?
> Do I get denied because I have enough IP's with IPv6?

I say no, my position is that (at least for the time being) IPv4
requests should be weighed against previous IPv4 allocations and IPv6
requests should be weighed against IPv6 allocations.

> What if my public website is available on v6 -- but I want more v4 for my
> customers?

If there is free IPv4 space available from/through ARIN, you are
announcing/routing your IPv6 allocation, your site is on v6 AND you
demonstrate need for the new IPv4 allocation; then you can have it.

> Do I get denied because my public website isn't reachable by an IP in the
> IPv6 allocation I got?
> What if it's reachable on some other IPv6 IP?

IMO, if it has a AAAA record and is reachable on v6 (anybodies
allocation) you pass.  Also, because of the limitation with some
current OS' there may need to be a provision for setting up an
ipv6.company.com as opposed to requiring a AAAA on the www address.

> What if I contract out my public website to some company who doesn't do IPv6
> yet despite all my requests for them to do it... and the IP's I'm asking for
> are for my corporate network, or my customers?   I have to change webhosting
> vendors in order to be able to have my website on v6, in order to be able to
> get more IP's for the rest of my business?

Yes.  I bet there would be a quick(er) move on the part of hosting
companies to support IPv6 if they were threatened with losing
customers over it.

>
>
>



-- 
Chris Grundemann
www.linkedin.com/in/cgrundemann