[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment

[Tom Vest]

Importing some text here from a related message/thread...

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Date: June 24, 2008 5:50:29 PM EDT
> To: Tom Vest <tvest at pch.net>
> Cc: "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com>, ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transferpolicy:	 
> whythetriggerdate?
>
>
> On Jun 24, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Tom Vest wrote:
>
>> Hi Owen,
>>
>> Thanks for the question.
>> For the most part, the answer was anticipated by Paul.
>
> Yeah, that's one of the reasons I like having Paul on the BoT.
> He's quite good that way.
>>
>> If a policy like this gets approved, and the reserved pool is large  
>> enough to last long enough so that no one -- no active IPv4-based  
>> operator or outside speculator -- could even conceive of a time  
>> horizon over which exploitation of the asymmetry/bottleneck  
>> opportunity might be profitable, then perhaps this won't be a  
>> problem.
>>
> I originally proposed a /8.  The current proposal is a /10.  These  
> would probably be handed out
> as /24-/28 sized chunks, so, I suspect that will at least get us  
> past the point where others might
> be willing to migrate away from some portion of their IPv4 stuff  
> into other solutions.
>
>> For that, the reserved pool would have to be big enough, at least,  
>> to accommodate transitional resources for all new entrants,  
>> assuming the fastest plausible rate of new entry, for the longest  
>> conceivable transition to de-facto full IPv4-IPv6 substitutability  
>> -- the point when everything important is transparently accessible  
>> by IPv6-only networks.
>>
> I think a /8 would provide a comfortable cushion beyond this.  A /10  
> will likely be more
> than enough space as well. I think we're talking about a 5 year  
> period beyond IPv4
> exhaustion maximum. This would accommodate at least 16,384 new  
> provider-independent
> entrants during that time, and, likely substantially more, possibly  
> as much as 256k new
> entrants.  I believe that is well above any anticipated number in a  
> 5 year timeframe.

If it wasn't already obvious, I support this proposal.
However, I think that the reservation should envision a 20-year  
transition timeframe, if not longer.

I am assuming that a resource transfer proposal will advance in  
parallel, and ultimately versions of both policies may be approved.

If that happens, some very risk-averse and/or very windfall-driven  
IPv4 holders/users may still be tempted to hold out until the reserved  
pool too is exhausted. The size of the reserved pool is the only real  
deterrent to discourage that kind of strategy.

TV


>> To begin estimating that quantity, I could derive the historical  
>> new entrant rate for the RIPE region, because I can distinguish the  
>> initial allocations from the subsequent allocations -- but I would  
>> have to defer to somebody else for the ARIN, et al rates...
>>
> At this point, the rates are probably relatively similar with RIPE's  
> rate being slightly
> higher.
>
>> In either case, what would count as a plausible new entry rate for  
>> the next (x)  years, relative to the historical rates -- what is  
>> the biggest bottleneck likely to be (address resources, routing  
>> capacity, transport facilities, etc.)? And what's the largest  
>> plausible (x) until de-facto substitutability is achieved, given  
>> (at least) the strategic considerations above?
>>
> In my opinion x<=5 and max plausible rate is <2000/year with likely  
> being closer
> to 200/year.
>
> Owen
>
>> TV
>>
>> On Jun 24, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> Tom,
>>> 	Absent the recent policy proposal to create a reservation
>>> for IPv6 Transitional Technologies in the ARIN IPv4 free pool,
>>> I would agree with you.  However, wouldn't that policy mitigate
>>> what you are saying below? (assuming it gets adopted)
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>> On Jun 24, 2008, at 6:55 AM, Tom Vest wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is also the matter of asymmetrical dependence and bargaining
>>>> power (detailed ad nauseam last week).
>>>>
>>>> Unless something changes, on the day after free pool exhaustion and
>>>> every day thereafter, "incumbent" IPv4-based networks will be  
>>>> able to
>>>> unilaterally decide whether/when they want to be transparently
>>>> interoperable with native IPv6 networks, and they will be able to
>>>> unilaterally act to make that possible, e.g., by going dual-stack,
>>>> renumbering, or operating a symmetrical 6/4 gateway.
>>>>
>>>> Unless something changes, on the day after free pool exhaustion and
>>>> every day thereafter, new IPv6-only networks will need to  
>>>> interoperate
>>>> with the universe of incumbent IPv4 networks. However, they will  
>>>> NOT
>>>> be able to unilaterally act to make that possible as long as that
>>>> requires at least some IPv4, which at that point will only  
>>>> available
>>>> from those incumbent networks, or from "pure speculators".
>>>>
>>>> That asymmetry is what will drive the price of IPv4 up and up, and
>>>> that increasing profit potential and bargaining power -- which is  
>>>> just
>>>> an artifact of the lingering IPv4 bottleneck between new IPv6  
>>>> networks
>>>> and everything still accessible only via IPv4 -- is what will
>>>> incentivize incumbent IPv4 networks/IPv4 dealers to delay their own
>>>> shift to transparent interoperability for as long as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Aspiring to be the last-mover will be the only rational strategy in
>>>> the environment that an IPv4 resource transfer market will create.
>>>>
>>>> But maybe rationality will take a holiday :-\
>>>>
>>>> TV
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 24, 2008, at 9:21 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't forget the fact that IPv6 is not yet a perfect or mature
>>>>> service.
>>>>> Delaying IPv6 implementation will avoid the costs involved with
>>>>> development and debugging of local networks while letting others  
>>>>> do
>>>>> the
>>>>> dirty work.  I am not advocating this, just recognizing a reality.
>>>>> The
>>>>> forward thinking administrators that want to make a difference  
>>>>> in the
>>>>> world will jump in and get it done, the profit driven  
>>>>> enterprises will
>>>>> sit back and wait until everything is easy or unavoidable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
>>>>> ]
>>>>> On
>>>>> Behalf Of Lee Dilkie
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 6:44 AM
>>>>> To: michael.dillon at bt.com
>>>>> Cc: ppml at arin.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transferpolicy:
>>>>> whythetriggerdate?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>>>>>>> As with many other technologies, there is a substantial last- 
>>>>>>> mover
>>>>>>> advantage to going dual-stack or single-v6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On what do you base this opinion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Michael Dillon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Moore's Law, one would think. Delaying purchase of networking
>>>>> equipment
>>>>> will yield better performance for lower cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PPML
>>>> 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:
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at  
>>>> info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>
>