[arin-ppml] Linking IPv4 allocations to IPv6
Lee at dilkie.com
Wed Jun 25 09:48:32 EDT 2008
Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Time to change the header, folks.
> Just some observations: The idea of linking v4 allocations to v6
> deployment is a departure (gasp) from "needs-based assessment." You are
> saying that people can demonstrate need for v4 addresses and not get
> them if they don't also deploy dual stack. Seems also to require heavier
> operational monitoring by ARIN. How would one define "gets used?"
Essentially, yes. If you need IPv4 and don't want to also deploy IPv6
with it then you are ignoring the common good. Future IPv6-only hosts
will be unable to communicate with your newly deployed IPv4 hosts. Why
would we want to allow such selfish behaviour?
And I don't see this as a departure of "needs based" at all. We're
simply telling you, "if you need IPv4 then you also need IPv6". It's
really no different than "if you need to build a power plant, then you
need to build an emission scrubber to prevent acid rain". It's all about
common good. It is good for all of us if these last IPv4 allocations
also drive up IPv6 deployment, because we need that to get demand
started (the "network effect" that someone alluded to earlier).
I'll let others define "gets used", ARIN seems to have a handle on
ensuring allocations are utilized properly.
More information about the ARIN-PPML