[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: TransferPolicy (UsingtheEmergencyPDP)

[David Farmer]

On 26 Mar 2009 Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> 
> All methods that allow an IPv6 host to access the IPv4 address require
> somewhere between one IPv4 address at the gateway (e.g., NAT64) and
> one IPv4 address per host (dual stack). None work in the case of zero
> IPv4 addresses available for the deployer of the gateway or host.
> 
> I do agree that an existing network operator with IPv4 space at their
> disposal will be able to use various techniques to continuing growing.
> Some operators (providers to consumer end-users) will have it easier
> than others (hosting of services that require unique IP addresses).
> 
> New entrants will be at a significant disadvantage in that there will
> be no PI space available from any RIR, so they will be limited to
> either getting IPv4 space (possibly overloaded via things like
> port-range sharing a la SHARA) from their ISP or acquiring IPv4 space
> either via the proposed transfer policy or via existing transfer
> mechanisms (buying existing holder entities). 

I believe that 2008-5 should guarantee at least some PI IPv4 address space 
will be available within the ARIN region for IPv4 to IPv6 transition 
mechanisms.  I don't see why a new entrant with mostly only IPv6 address 
shouldn't be able to get at least some IPv4 space for transition mechanisms. 
On the face of it, that is the intent of 2008-5.  If you disagree, please explain 
why, and lets try to fix that.

https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_5.html

If in the long run IPv6 adoption fails, well then there really can't be any new 
entrants can there.  


=======================================================
David Farmer				     Email:	farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-0815
2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-1818
=======================================================