[arin-ppml] Is Emergency action warranted for Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure?
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Tue Dec 21 23:27:49 EST 2010
You ask "[do I] believe proposal 123 should allow TLD operators to
delay IPv6 deployment?"
If 123 is adopted, and if a similar policy is adopted in RIRs that
provide allocations to "developing economies", then the existence of
the policy provides a basis to argue that v6 capacity may be deferred
from no later than the transition to delegation period to some point
in time subsequent. Whether the deferral is for one year or three is
not as important as making the policy choice that applicants will fail
if, at transition to delegation, they do not have v6 capacity.
To grasp the full import, assume 1k applications, with between 60% and
80% survival to "transition to delegation", in the 2011 cohort
reaching this state in 2012 and compelled to complete the transition
in a fixed period. To make it worse, bear in mind that all of the 1k
applicants need to have committed, when submitting their applications,
in late 2010 or early 2011, their v6 capabilities.
If half do not use existing legacy platforms, VGRS etc., than on the
order of a third of all applicant-operators are at risk of
administrative failure, or of operational failure, for lack or, or
lack of experience with a single point of failure, v6 capacity.
The naive v6 requirement, like several others, but this one is the
only one which raises an ASO, hence an NRO, hence an ARIN policy
issue, is likely to have the effect of channeling applicants to the
existing legacy legacy platforms. It "raises the bar" for competition
to the existing legacy legacy platforms, or the need for competencies
for which existing registry operators have no contractual obligation
As your question goes to my beliefs, I believe that existing data
centers are not going to cease servicing requests for data from v4
addresses. I also believe that existing data centers are not going to
be as immediately, or as critically, affected by v4 exhaustion as are
access network operators.
I suggest that the overwhelming majority of addresses used by domain
registrants will be, during the same period that new registries are
experiencing their first operational year(s) in the 2011 round of new
gTLDs, v4 addresses.
As to your beliefs, with respect, if "the main driver for requiring
new TLD operators to be v6 capable is to ensure that new Internet
users, who will have IPv6 as their primary connectivity, will be able
to access the TLD nameservers over IPv6", then we, as two policy
development communities, are indifferent to the interests of new
Internet users in existing resources made available through a name to
address mapping mechanism, and we are indifferent to the interests of
existing Internet users in the organization of existing resources
through a name to address mapping mechanism.
Existing resources currently used in rural North America can be named
in a new rural North American namespace without necessarily being
renumbered and existing resources currently used in Africa can also be
named in a new african namespace, also without necessarily being
Thank you for your thoughtful question, and also John Sweeting, who
suggested that all subscribers to PPML provide their thoughts on the
proposals and the the criteria each used to come to their conclusions.
More information about the ARIN-PPML