[arin-ppml] Linking IPv4 allocations to IPv6
cgrundemann at gmail.com
Wed Jun 25 12:04:15 EDT 2008
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
> Lee Dilkie wrote:
> > Seriously folks.
> > Dual stack is the only reasonable way to both get IPv6 deployed *and*
> > maintain legacy networking with IPv4-only hosts/applications.
>> 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.
> Aside from the many reasons why this would never fly and likely isnt a
> very good idea in the first place, it doesnt accomplish the stated
> objective or anything else positive for that matter.
Moving towards a more truly 'use-able' IPv6 Internet is very positive,
anything that anyone can do to encourage participation is very
> The only way an ipv6 only host can communicate with the entire network
> of interest is with translations and gateways. This is because it simply
> hasnt and wont happen anytime soon that every ipv4 node of interest will
> also have an ipv6 address.
> I would lay odds it isnt going to happen for 5-10 years either, if ever.
> No matter what runs out.
> Do you even think there are enough netop man hours to ipv6 every single
> network and node starting from today until IANA runout?
> So dual stack is a dead end concept that hasnt and will never fly. It is
> only required today because ipv6 doesnt actually connect you to a
> network with anyone of interest on it.
> Dual stack is a policy of failure. It is a failure to make ipv6
> compelling and useful on its own.
I could not disagree more. Dual stack is the correct approach to the
v4 to v6 migration. Translations and gateways are the concepts that
we are being forced to adopt because so many kept there eyes shut
tight about IPv6 for so long.
> Not only does ipv6 need to be compelling and useful in its own right, it
> must also provide at least the same level of network access as v4nat.
And the more people who use dual stack in the interim/transition
period, the more network access there is via v6. Which makes it
easier for others to move to IPv6 and so on.
> And for a nitpick, any such policy would actually have to require that
> all addressed nodes from the allocations be dual stack to have any hope
> for a change at all. So the policy would have to require that the
> requesting org dual stack all hosts to be addressed from the new
> allocation and get ipv6 transit, which last I checked is barely
> available most places.
> As for policy driving IPv6, I think that ipv6 allocations should be made
> available for the taking for every single asn originating ipv4 prefixes
> and it should be large enough that they will likely not come back again.
> A /32 for every AS. No questions asked. We have at least half a billion
> to hand out, I am sure we could spare 40-50k. In fact, the allocations
> should come from a range that includes the AS number.
> Once they have it, they might use it. Tunneled or not.
> But making ARIN into any more "bad cop" than absolutely necessary is a
> Really Bad Idea.
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. This would require the organization
to get some sort of ipv6 transit service and would thus encourage them
to actually utilize it. 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.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML