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

[Frank Bulk - iName.com]

I would support a proposal that, as Leo described, "required some level of
IPv6 deployment without specific technologies."

One approach I considered would be apply to a significant surcharge (i.e.
1000%) for all those that didn't have IPv6 implemented.  By applying a
surcharge, fee schedules would not need to be adjusted.  The problem with
that is some companies might find the surcharge cheaper than actually
deploying IPv6.  The CFO might not like paying more, but if the cost of
implementing IPv6 is more, they might grudgingly pay it.  And there are also
those companies where money is no real object but the drive to implement
IPv6 is low if not non-existent.

So I come full-circle back to the original proposal, which is "don't provide
them IPv4 address space at all".  For non-dualstacked shops, D-Day is just a
few months earlier than everyone else.  While that may appear punitive, why
should someone else's lack of preparation result in my inability to obtain
IPv4 address space?

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 10:44 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient
Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack

In a message written on Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 01:10:58PM -0700, Chris
Grundemann wrote:
> 4.1.3. Dual-Stack
>
> Dual-stack refers to configuring both an IPv4 and an IPv6 address or
> network together on the same network infrastructure.
>
> All new IPv4 addresses assigned, allocated or transfered to an
> organization must be deployed on dual-stacked interfaces along with
> IPv6 addresses.

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".

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/