[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 125: Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 10:28:18AM -0500, ARIN wrote:
> When addresses are used to provide an Internet facing service, the
> service must be fully IPv6 accessible (if you deploy an A record, you
> must also have a AAAA record, and both must answer).

There's a rather large loophole here.

If I don't do DNS for the service I deploy, I don't have to dual
stack.  No A, no AAAA.  I would expect, for instance, that many
end-user providers might chose to not do any DNS for a residential
user if it got them out of providing IPv6.

There is also the problem that some folks may prefer to deploy
www.foo.com (A record) and ipv6.foo.com (AAAA record) for now, even
if fully dual stacked at L3.  This policy would seem to penalize
those fully dual stacked folks, simply becaue they use two DNS
labels.

In short, ARIN doesn't play in DNS, and it's one step removed from
the issue at hand.  This policy needs to be written to insure the
L3 network is dual stacked, not that those addresses appear in a
service like DNS.

> In order to receive additional space end-users must provide detailed
> documentation demonstrating that at least 80% of their existing IPv4
> addresses are deployed on dual-stacked interfaces in accordance with
> section 4.1.3.

Here's where you may be on to something.  In a theoretical sense I
like the concept that you have to show 80% of your IPv4 layer 3
things are dual stacked with IPv6 layer 3 things on the same
interfaces.

The problem is, when we move out of the theoretical, I don't
understand how this has any meaningful effect.  We can't use such
a rule to prohibit assigning IPv6 space or we put people in a Catch
22.  We can use it to deny more IPv4 space, of which we'll be out
of the free pool before this policy can be implemented.

Thus the only result of this policy is to prevent people from buying
IPv4 space in the market (paid transfers, whatever) unless they are
dual stacked.   Except I thought the entire point of the market was
to give folks you couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't dual stack a way out,
if perhaps an expensive one.

This would have been an excellent idea 5 years ago, with a phased
in dual-stack rate (20% the first year, 40% the second year, etc)
to encourage people to get dual-stacked before run out.  Now that
we are at run-out it doesn't seem to do anything useful to me, and
may undermine the primary purpose of the market.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20101203/851c38c5/attachment.sig>