[arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Mon Nov 2 14:00:25 EST 2009

Chris Engel wrote:
> IPv6's best chance of adoption is to make the transition from IPv4 as seamless as possible for everyone involved. Which also largely means not necessitating a change of the methodologies and practices that people currently use with IPv4 more then is really required. It also means not tying other agenda's to IPv6's bandwagon.
> The one thing that I think pretty much everyone can agree is a positive with IPv6 is more address space available....at least I certainly don't think anyone would perceive that as a negative. The more things that you require people surrender in order to achieve that additional address space (in my case it would be primarily NAT... but it could be anything else for some-one else).... the less likely it is they are to determine the positives outweigh the negatives of adoption.
> If an argument is worthy of making (such as the idea that NAT is bad and need be eliminated).... let that crusade be fought SEPARATELY from IPv6. The same holds true for things ARIN is directly responsible for...such as rules for the justification of IP address space.
> IPv6 may ALLOW for those issues to be addressed (such as some make the case it allows for the obsolescence of NAT or far more liberal requirements for receiving address space)..... however it should not NECESSITATE that they be....unless IPv6 itself cannot be made to function without them..... and if it does, then it's design is poorly conceived.

Well put.  In light of that, where do you see the need for policy work?  
Are there places where ARIN policy is interfering with transition by 
unnecessarily bundling other considerations into addressing policy?  Are 
there areas (such as the rules for justification of IP address space) 
where we haven't yet done enough to make the transition as painless as 
possible for everyone involved?


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list