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

[Scott Leibrand]

So I take it you consider the existing ULA's "statistical uniqueness) to 
be sufficient?  One thing I've heard a small amount of support for is to 
have RIRs register unique addresses that are intended to be used for 
private addressing, and assign them out of a range dedicated for that 
purpose.  I'm not sure if that's necessary, myself, but I'm open to 
arguments from anyone who thinks so.

-Scott

Chris Engel wrote:
> Scott,
>
> I really didn't mean to stir up the NAT hornets nest again. I was speaking in more general terms that things which do not specificaly NEED to be tied to IPv6 to make it function should not be. NAT was simply an example of my own particular pet-peeve area of this....I'm sure others here have thier own....some of which MAY actually involve ARIN policy.
>
> About the only thing that could be done policy-wise in regards the feasability of NAT in IPv6 is simply ensure that certain address space is reserved for Private Networks and will NEVER be handed out to anyone to be publicaly routed... just as the 10.x.x.x /8 and 192.168.x.x /16 spaces are currently reseved under IPv4. However, that seems to already be covered by rfc4193.... so I'm not sure there is a specific issue here.....other then to realize that the speed of IPv6 adoption may not be as quick as many here would hope for.
>
>
>
> Christopher Engel
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 2:00 PM
> To: Chris Engel
> Cc: 'arin-ppml at arin.net'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern
>
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>