[arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack

[Jason Schiller]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010, Leo Bicknell wrote:

|I strongly object to this petition for the same reason I objected
|to the original proposal, the dual stack requirement.
|
|I know there are folks who have deployed IPv6 enabled services by
|having all IPv4 stuff in one data center, and all IPv6 stuff in a
|second datacenter.  Different servers, differennt load balancers,
|etc.  These folks are good actors, as they are "fully IPv6 enabled"
|when accessing them over the Internet.  This policy would punish
|them though for failing to deliver the service on the same "interface".

Leo.  This was certainly not my intention.  I think the scenerio you 
describe is acceptable, but difficult to monitor for abuse.  

Assuming there were two data centers with a one for one corrolation 
between servers and services offered, but one data center was IPv4-only 
and one was IPv6-only, then I would support the position that an 
organization could get additional IPv4 addresses to continue to build-out 
their IPv4 data center (say for new customers) so long as they 
have parrellel growth (they also built-out and provisioned those same new 
customers) in the IPv6 data-center.

This is why section 4.1.4 says 

"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)."


I think we were envisioning 3 types of IP address uses for an 
organization:

1. For growth of your organization's network
2. For transit customers
3. For growth of an Internet facing server for your organization or 
    customers of your organization

The dual stacking requirement was intended to apply to the first two, to 
insure if your network's need for IPv4 continues to grow, or if your need 
for IPv4 adresses for transit customers continues to grow, that you 
actively deploy new customers with IPv4 and IPv6 capabilities, and begin 
moving IPv4-only customers to have IPv6 capabilities.

I assumed it would be too costly to continue to have two seperate networks 
for IPv4 and IPv6 in the case of the first two, but after consideration of 
your email, it maybe should be something we make a provision for. 



__Jason

|
|I think a more generic proposal that required some level of IPv6
|deployment without specific technologies (dual-stack) in it might
|win my support, but as-is, no way.
|
|-- 
|       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
|        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
|